abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Accused : Sri.Naveen.T, Age 34 years, Naveen Tours and Travels, K.V.N. Complex, Devanahalli 562 110, Bengaluru Rural District. Also at R/at.No.873, Goribagilu, Near Old Bus Stop, 2 C.C.18995/2019 Devanahalli 562 110. Bengaluru Rural District. { By Sri.Kari Gowda Advocate } Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act., Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty Final Order : Accused is Convicted Date of Order : 02062023 JUDGMENT The present complaint is filed under section 2(d) read with section 200 of code of criminal procedure against the accused seeking to punish him for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short referred as "N.I. Act"). 3 C.C.18995/2019 02. The facts which leads to present complaint are under; It is averred in the complaint that, the complainant is one of the member and distributor of the Q NetBronze Vacation club. The accused is a proprietor of Naveen Tours and Travels carrying on the business at KVN Complex, Devanahalli 562 110, Bengaluru Rural District. It is further averred that, the accused has requested the complainant to get a membership of his two friends by name Vinay Kumar S and Ranjit.G in the Q NetBronze Vacation club. Considering the request of the accused, the complainant had recommended their names to the Q Net Bronze Vacation club and got their membership approved. As directed by the Q NetBronze Vacation club, the complainant has remitted the amount to the Franchisee namely Vihan Direct Selling India(P) Ltd., towards the membership amount of the above said persons amounting to Rs.1,50,600/ each in total Rs.3,01,200/ from the complainant's amount and knowing this fact well, the accused has agreed to pay the said amount of 4 C.C.18995/2019 Rs.3,01,200/ to the complainant by collecting the amount from the said two persons. The complainant came to know that, the accused had collected the above said sum of Rs.3,01,200/ from the aforesaid persons, but the accused did not transferred the above said amount of Rs.03,01,200/ to the complainant inspite of several requests and demands and subsequently, the accused has issued following three cheques; 01. Cheque bearing No.000683 dated 18.05.2019 for a sum of Rs.01,00,000/, 02. Cheque bearing No.000684 dated 18.05.2019 for a sum of Rs.01,00,000/ & 03. Cheque bearing No.000685 dated 18.05.2019 for a sum of Rs.01,00,000/. All the above said cheques were drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Devanahalli in favour of the complainant. The complainant has presented the said cheques for encashment through her banker, but it returned unpaid with banker's endorsement dated 21.05.2019 as "Funds Insufficient". On 27.05.2019, demand notice was issued 5 C.C.18995/2019 to the both the addresses of the accused by RPAD. The demand notice issued by RPAD has been duly served on accused on 29.05.2019 to the both the addresses of the accused. In spite of service of legal notice, the accused neither has paid the cheque amount nor has given any reply. On these grounds, it is sought to convict the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act and to pass the suitable order. 03. On presentation of complaint, this cou
MADHYA PRADESH MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Arpan Pawar Senior Advocate with Shri Chiranjeev Sharma Advocate for petitioner. Shri Dharmendra Soni Advocate for respondent No.2. ORDER This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 05.08.2022 and order dated 07.10.2022 passed by the respondent No.1/M.P. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. Vide order dated 07.10.2022, the respondent No.1 has granted the claim made by respondent No.2 without deciding preliminary objection raised by petitioners and without proper opportunity of hearing. 2. A preliminary objection with respect to maintainability of this petition was taken by the respondent drawing attention of this Court to the orders passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 11.09.2024 and 27.11.2024 in this writ petition pointing out the fact that threeJudge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Glycols Ltd. v. MSEFC, Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 26112025 18:26:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHCJBP:60121 2 WP65612023 Telangana, reported in (2025) 5 SCC 780 has observed that the only remedy against the award passed under the provisions of the MSMED Act would be Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for which deposit of seventyfive per cent of the amount in terms of the award is required. Therefore, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 3. The order passed by this Court dated 27.11.2024 further reveals that the petitioners' counsel was taking two diametric opposite arguments; on one hand, that in terms of the award dated 12.10.2015, all the liabilities were settled qua the respondents whereas another issue is that on failure of conciliation without explicitly resorting to arbitration, no award could have been passed by the Facilitation Council. 4. Counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the twoJudges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs State of Rajasthan, reported in (2021) 19 SCC 206 with respect to paragraphs 10 to 18 thereof. It is argued that the judgment passed in the case of Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (supra) has considered the aspect of Sections 18(2) and 18(3) of MSMED Act and has held that : 14. From a reading of Sections 18(2) and 18(3) of the Msmed Act it is clear that the Council is obliged to conduct conciliation for which the provisions of Sections 65 to 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would apply, as if the conciliation was initiate
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED Appearance: BANSI M KARIA(9320) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 RAJVI N PATEL(9620) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR AJAY R MEHTA(453) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 Date : 27/02/2020 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The word 'domicile' is "to identify the personal law by which an individual is governed in respect of various matters such as the essential validity of a marriage, the effect of marriage on the proprietary rights of husband and wife, jurisdiction in divorce and nullity of marriage, illegitimacy, legitimation and adoption and testamentary and intestate succession to moveables. "Domicile" as pointed Page 2 of 65 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 14:00:08 IST 2020 C/SCA/2053/2020 JUDGMENT out in Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition) vol. 8, paragraph 421 is the legal relationship between an individual and a territory with a distinct legal system, which invokes that system as his personal law.It is well settled that the domicile of a person in that country in which he either has or is deemed by law to have his permanent home. "By domicile" said Lord Cranworth in Wicker v. Humes, [1858] 7 HL Cases 124, "We mean home, the permanent home". 2. "Domicile" is basically a legal concept for the purpose of determining what is the personal law applicable to an individual and even if an individual
1. Gyanendra Kumar Singh S/o Late Kamla Prasad Singh resident of 23, Bailey Road, P.O. + P.S. Shashtri Nagar, District Patna 2. Rabindra Rai S/o Late Sone Lal Rai resident of Village + P.O. + P.S. Mahua, District Patna 3. Neeraj Kumar Singh S/o Ram Kishore Singh resident of 10, Birchand Patel Path, Patna, District Patna. 4. Rahul Kumar S/o Jagdish Sharma resident of 15, Hardinge Road, P.S. Secretariat, District Patna. 5. Shri Shravan Kumar son of Late Hari Prasad Singh Chief Whip of the ruling party, Bihar Legislative Assembly, presently residing at 12A, Bailey Road, P.O. GPO, PS Secretariat, District Patna .... .... Respondents With Letters Patent Appeal No. 128 of 2015 IN 1. Shri Shravan Kumar S/o Late Hari Prasad Singh Chief Whip of the Ruling Party, Bihar Legislative Assembly, presently residing at 12A, Bailey Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Secretariat, District Patna. .... .... Appellant Versus 1. Gyanendra Kumar Singh S/o Late Kamla Prasad Singh Resident of 23, Bailey Road, P.O. + P.S. Shashtri Nagar, District Patna. 2. Rabindra Rai S/o Late Sone Lal Rai Resident of Village + P.O. + P.S. Mahua, District Patna. 3. Neeraj Kumar Singh S/o Ram Kishore Singh Resident of 10, Birchand Patel Path, Patna, District Patna. 4. Rahul Kumar S/o Jagdish Sharma Resident of 15, Hardinge Road, P.S. Secretariat, District Patna. 5. The Bihar Legislative Assembly, Patna through the Secretary. .... .... Respondents Patna High Court LPA No.83 of 2015 dt.07042015 2/100 (In LPA No. 83 of 2015) For the Appellant : Mr. Y. V. Giri, Senior Advocate Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 4: Mr. Vinod Kumar Kanth, Senior Advocate Mr. S. B. K. Manglam, Advocate For Resp. No. 5 : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Senior Advocate Mr. Piyush Lal, Advocate (In LPA No. 128 of 2015) For the Appellant : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Senior Advocate Mr. Piyush Lal, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 4: Mr. Vinod Kumar Kanth, Senior Advocate Mr. S. B. K. Manglam, Advocate For Resp. No. 5 : Mr. Y. V. Giri, Senior Advocate Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH CAV JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI) Date: 07042015 Axiomatic! is it not that members, Bihar Legislative Assembly, come to this Court with a writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to get, inter alia, set aside and quashed the order, dated 01.11.2014, passed by the Speaker, Bihar Legislative Assembly, disqualifying them from being members of the Bihar Legislative Assembly and while filing the writ petition, Patna High Court LPA No.83 of 2015 dt.07042015 3/100 though the Speaker, Bihar Legislative Assembly, and Shri Shravan Kumar, Chief Whip of the Ruling Party, who was complainant and on whose complaint, the order, dated 01.11.2014, aforementioned had been passed by the Speaker, Bihar Legis
Delhi High Court M/S. National Projects Construction ... vs M/S. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd on 11 November, 2022 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/004762 * % Reserved on:18th August, 2022 Decided on: 11th November 2022 + O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 98/2021& I.A. 12793/2021 (Stay) M/S. NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3031, RAJA HOUSE, NEHRU PLACE NEW DELHI 110 019. .....Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Purvesh Buttan & Mr. Prateek Narwar, Advocates. versus M/S. KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LTD. BELAPUR BHAVAN, 5TH FLOOR, PLOT NO. 6, SECTOR NO. 11 CBD BELAPUR, NAVI MUMBAI 400614. ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Kiran Bhagalia & Mr. Keshav Ranjan, Advocates with Mr. Nalinakshan P. (Dy. CE) AR. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G E M E N T NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. 1. The petitioner has filed under Sections 14(1) and 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter referred to as "A & C Act, 1996") seeking termination of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal and appointment of retired judge/s of the High Court as coarbitrators and also as presiding arbitrator. 2. Facts in brief are that the petitionerM/s. National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. was awarded the Tender for construction of Signature Not Verified O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 98/2021 Page 1 of 24 Digitally Signed By:SAHIL SHARMA Signing Date:11.11.2022 12:47:55 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2022/DHC/004762 BG Single Line Tunnel No. 5 (Bakkal Tunnel) from Km. 46.040 to Km. 48.940 on the Katra Laole Section of USBRL Project. The estimated cost of the Tender was of ₹171,11,15,718/. The original date of the work commencement was in March, 2004 and the completion period was 34 months i.e., 31st December, 2006. An extension of time was requested up to 31st December, 2012 and the ad hoc extensions were granted up to 31 st December, 2008 and 31st July, 2010. 3. It is submitted that during the execution of work, various disputes arose between the parties and in terms of the Clauses 53, 54 and 55 of Special Conditions of Contract Agreement and Clause 64 of General Conditions of Contract. The respondent and the petitioner entered into a Supplementary Agreement of Arbitration. 4. A set of claims up to 31st January, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "Claims Set No.1") were taken up for adjudication by the then constituted Arbitral Tribunal, comprising of Mr. Y.P. Singh, Mr. H.S. Yadav and Mr. S. Balachandran as the Arbitrators in the year of January, 2008 and an Award dated 21st February, 2012 was pronounced which was received by the petitioner on 01st March, 2012. The Award was challenged under Section 34 of A & C Act, 1996 and is pending at the stage of arguments. 5. Since January, 2008, despite the disputes having arisen between the parties and the petitioner having suffered huge losses, it continued to perform the execution of the work unti
New Delhi 2nd Floor, NBCC Tower, 15Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi PAN :AABCP7947F (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No 2506/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 201213 ITA No.2507/Del/2016 Assessment period : 14.11.2023 ITA No 7474/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 201213 ITA No.7530/Del/2018 Assessment period : 09.01.2024 PTC India Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Circle19(2), 2nd Floor, NBCC Tower, New Delhi 15Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi PAN :AABCP7947F (Appellant) (Respondent) 2 ITA No. 809/Del/2015 & Ors. Assessee by S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Sanat Kapoor, Tarun Chanana, Sumit Lalchandani & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advs. Department by Shri P N Barnwal, CIT DR Date of hearing 27.03.2024 Date of pronouncement 27.05.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA: JUDICIAL MEMBER: These are appeals preferred by the assessee as well as the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as Ld. First Appellate Authority or 'the ld. FAA' for short) in appeals filed before him against the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short). Further details of the orders of the lower authorities are as under: ITA No. CIT(A) who Appeal No. & Date AO who passed Section of the passed the order of order of the the assessment IT Act under CIT(A) order & Date of which the AO order passed the order 2506/Del/2016 CIT(A)7, New 877/CIT(A) DCIT, Cir. 143(3) Delhi 7/Del/1415 19(1) & (2), New Delhi, date 29.02.2016 02.03.2015 2507/Del/2016 CIT(A)7, New 629/CIT(A) DCIT, Do Delhi 7/Del/1516, Cir.19(2), New Delhi. Date: date: 31.03.2016 18.01.2016 7474/Del/2017 Do 10603/401/CIT(A) DCIT, Cir. Do 7/Del/201617 date 19(2) New 04.10.2017 Delhi, date 3 ITA No. 809/Del/2015 & Ors. 16.12.2016 7530/Del/2018 CIT(A)38, 230/201718 Addl.CIT, Spl. Do New Delhi Range7, New date 26.09.2018 Delhi, date 31.12.2017 809/Del/2015 CIT(A)XVII, 115/1314 DCIT, Cir.14 Do Delhi (1), New Delhi, Date: 05.11.2014 date 31.12.2013 2690/Del/2016 CIT(A)7, New 877/CIT(A) DCIT, Do Delhi. 7/Del/1415 Cir.19(1) & (2), New Delhi date 29.02.2016 date: 02.03.2015 3120/Del/2016 CIT(A)7, New 629/CIT(A) DCIT, Do Delhi, 7/Del/1516 Cir.19(2), New Delhi. Date: date: 31.03.2016 18.01.2016 7432/Del/2017 CIT(A)7, New 10603/401/CIT(A) DCIT, Do Delhi, 7/Del/201617 Cir.19(2), New Delhi.
Jaydeep Developers & Ors., ...Respondents/ Org. Defendants WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2718 OF 2020 IN INTERIM APPLICATION NO.308 OF 2019 IN SUIT NO.191 OF 2023 Jaydeep Developers ...Applicant/ Org. Defendant No.1 Versus Lok Everest CoOp.Hsg. Soc. Ltd. ...Respondent/ Org. Plaintiff Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud a/w Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Ms. Ashwini Patil i/b Solicis Lex for the Plaintiff. Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Vishal Narichania, Mrs. Pallavi Kulkarni i/b Ms. Minal Parab a/w Mr. Manoj B., Mr. Shrinidhi Suryawanshi for Defendant No.1 in Suit and for KAVITA SUSHIL Applicant in IA 2718/2020. JADHAV Digitally signed by KAVITA Ms. Pooja Yadav i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi for Defendant No.2. SUSHIL JADHAV Date: 2025.11.07 17:43:19 +0530 Mr. G.S. Bhat for Applicant in IA 452/2022. 1 ::: Uploaded on 07/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on 08/11/2025 00:33:45 ::: ROIA 308.19 with IA 2718.20 in S 191.23.doc CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA, J. RESERVED ON : 27th JUNE, 2025. PRONOUNCED ON : 7th NOVEMBER, 2025. ORDER : 1. By this Interim Application, the Plaintiff/Applicant is seeking an order of injunction restraining the Defendant No.1 and / or their agents, servants and assigns from making any alterations and / or constructing new Building C5 or Wing C5 or undertaking any construction in the Larger Property. Further, consequential relief has been sought in addition to the primary relief. 2. The captioned Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff in which the present Interim Application has been taken out seeking to enforce its rights under Section 7(1)(ii), read with Sections 3(2)(c) and 4(1A)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 ("MOFA"). The Plaintiff is a society of flat purchasers occupying Building No.4, consisting of four Wings B1, B2, C1 and C2 that are connected to each other. The Plaintiff Society has 309 members. The case of the Plaintiff is that, Defendant No.1 Developer has exhausted the development potential of the land as disclosed to the 2 ::: Uploaded on 07/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on 08/11/2025 00:33:45 ::: ROIA 308.19 with IA 2718.20 in S 191.23.doc flat purchasers at the time of the execution of the flat purchase agreements, and in spite of which Defendant No. 1 is seeking to utilize more FSI on the subject plot on account of an increase in FSI due to a change in law, which the Plaintiff contends is contrary to MOFA. 3. A brief
Coronet, Baner, Pune Karve Marg, MH411 045 Mumbai400 020 (ApIlaaqaI / Appellant) .. (p`%yaqaaI / Respondent) स्थायी ले खा िं . / PAN No. AABCV9446M अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant by : Miss Bhavya Bansal Shri Suresh Tolani Shri Darpan Kirpalani, ARs' प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent by : Shri V Jenardhanan, Sr. DR न ु वाई की तारीख / Date of hearing: 15052018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement : 27072018 AadoSa / O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Dispute Resolution Panel1, Mumbai, [in short DRP] vide direction dated 25.09.2012 u/s 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter "the Act"). The Assessment was framed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2 ITA No . 7 2 80 / Mu m /2 0 12 Circle 3(3), Mumbai (in short ACIT/ AO) for the AY 200809 order dated 04102012 under section 143(3) of the Act. 2. The first issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of AO/DRP/TPO is as regards to the making of upward adjustment to the total income of the assessee on account of international transactions relating to software development services entered into by assessee with its associate enterprises holding that the same was not at arm's length price. For this assessee has raised the following grounds: "Re.: Adjustment of Rs 1,98,33,679/ on account of the software development services: 1.1 The Assessing Officer the Disput e Resolution Panel/ the Transfer Pricing Officer has in making an upward adjustment of Rs 1,98,33,679/ to the total income of the Appellant by holding that the international transaction relating to the software development services entered into by the Appellant with its Associated Enterprise was not at an arm's length. 1.2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its ease and the law prevailing oil subject the international transaction relating to the software development servi ces entered into by the Appellant with its Associated Enterprise was at an arm's length and hence no adjustment in respect thereof was called for and the stand taken by the Assessing Officer/the Dispute Resolution Panel the 3 ITA No . 7 2 80 / Mu m /2 0 12 Transfer Pricing Officer in this regard is misconceived, erroneous and incorrect. 1.3 The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to delete the upward adjustment of Rs. 1,98,33 ,679/ made by him to the Appellant's total income and to re compute its total income and tax liability accordingly. " 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of research and development of telecommunication, software and back office support services i.e. IT enable services. The AO during the assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee has undertaken international transaction within the meaning of section 92(b) of the Act with its associate enterprises and therefore a refer
Page 1 of 12 SectorIII, Madangir Branch, New Delhi in favour of the complainant, which on presentation the same was returned unpaid with the remarks "Account Inoperative/ dormant" vide returning memo dated 19.06.2010. Thereafter, complaint sent a legal notice dated 28.06.2010 by way of registered AD/ UPC upon the accused which was duly received by the accused and despite that payment of the cheque in question was not made by the accused within the stipulated time of 15 days. Hence, the complaint. 2. In the presummoning evidence, affidavit by way of evidence ExCW1 was filed by the complainant. In her affidavit of evidence ExCW1, the complainant reiterated all the averments made in his complaint and relied on documents are original cheque in question Ex. CW1/1, its return memo Ex. CW1/2, office copy of legal notice Ex. CW1/3, postal receipt Ex. CW1/4, receipt Ex. CW1/5. The complaint is Ex. CW1/6. After closure of presummoning evidence, since sufficient material was found against the accused, summoning order u/s 204 CrPC was passed against the accused vide order dated 15.02.2011. 3. Accused appeared in pursuant to issuance of NBW. Thereafter, during court proceedings on 15.10.2013, accused submitted that he is not mentally fit and he is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and therefore, court conducted inquiry u/s 328 Cr. PC in order to ascertain whether accused lunatic or of unsound mind and is incapable of making his defence. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.03.2015 Court passed following order: "On the last date of hearing, medical board was directed to be constituted to examine the accused and give the opinion whether the accused is fit to stand the trial. In compliance of the direction of the Court, medical board was constituted at Safdarjung Hospital. Dr. Ajipal Vs. Girraj CC No. 102/18 Page 2 of 12 Pankaj Verma is one of the members of the medical board. As per the report, the accused has appeared for medical examination and examined by the board. It is further reported that on the basis of the history and detailed mental status examination, the accused is fit to stand the trial. I seek certain clarification from the Dr. Pankaj Verma and on clarification and considering the report of the accused, I am