abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Gauhati High Court Page No.# 1/3 vs M/S Cleanrooms Containments And Anr on 4 April, 2025 Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010065012025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1786/2025 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS, ROOM NO. 122 C, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI, PIN110011 2: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GUWAHATI ELECTRICAL DIVISION CPWD BAMUNIMAIDAN GUWAHATI78102 VERSUS M/S CLEANROOMS CONTAINMENTS AND ANR PLOT NO. 24, BHAGYA LAKSHMI COOP SOCIETY, P AND T COLONY, TIRUMALGIRI, SECUNDERABAD, PIN500015. 2:MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL YADARI BHUVANAGIRI REGION YADADRI BHUVANAGIRI REGION TELANGANA STATE PIN CODE 50837 Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. A GAYAN, Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR O R D E R 04.04.2025 Heard Ms. A Gayan, learned CGC, appearing for the petitioner. Page No.# 2/3 It is the case of the petitioner that a Work Order was awarded to the respondent No.1 for "Consultancy for design of service and facilities in DBT Animal House Facilities at RMRC, Dibrugarh (Assam)" for an amount of Rs.8,40,000/. The respondent No.1 thereafter completed the work. However, as the contract amount was not paid to the respondent No.1, they approached the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council Yadari Bhuvanagiri Region (hereinafter referred to as the Council) by filing case No.TS/02/S/YBR/00021. Thereafter the Council passed the order dated 15.03.2024 directing the petitioner to pay the principal amount of Rs.8,40,000/ along with interest with effect from the appointed day in terms of Section 15 & 16 of MSMED Act, 2006. Further, it was also provided that compound interest with monthly interest shall be payable at the rate of three times of the Bank rate as notified by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time till realisation of the dues i.e. till the day of final payment made to the respondent No.1. The petitioner was also directed to pay the principal and interest amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the award. It is the case of the petitioner that the Council has no jurisdiction to consider the case filed by the respondent No.1 and further in terms of Clause5.6.2 of the contract agreement signed between the parties, if there is any grievance, the same would be referred to the Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the CPWD for adjudication. Issue notice. Petitioner to take steps for service of notice on the respondent No.1 by registered post with A/D card within one week from today. Page No.# 3/3 Notice on the respondent No.2 is withheld for the time being. List the matter after four weeks. In the interim, the order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Council in Case No. TS/02/S/YBR/00021 shall remain suspended till the next returnable date. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Supreme Court Daily Orders M/S Acccurate Facilities India vs M/S. Simple Engineering Solutions on 17 October, 2025 Diary No. 44450/2025 ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.7 SECTION IXA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 44450/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11072025 in ARBA No. 89/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay] M/S ACCCURATE FACILITIES INDIA Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S. SIMPLE ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS Respondent(s) IA No. 257480/2025 CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No. 257477/2025 EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 257479/2025 EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. Date : 17102025 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra, AOR Ms. Spriha Jha, Adv. Ms. Prashansika Thakur, Adv. Mr. Shivam Tiwari, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHANDRESH Date: 2025.10.17 1 17:18:32 IST Reason: Diary No. 44450/2025 1. Delay condoned. 2. The petitioner herein has been directed to pay Rs.4,53,287/ with compound interest as provided under Section 16 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short “the MSMED Act). The amount with interest as awarded now comes to around Rs.84 lakh. 3. We do not propose to go into the merits of the matter. We are inclined to hear the parties only on the issue of interest. 4. Ms. Geeta Luthra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 22.1.2025 in the matter of “M/s. Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited vs. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Anr.” reported in 2025 INSC 91. 5. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, the learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent on caveat. 6. We are of the view that it will be in the fitness of the things and in the interest of all the parties concerned if they sit together and try to work out something amicably insofar as the interest component is concerned. 7. With the consent of both the parties, we appoint Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, the learned counsel, who is present in the Court to act as the Sole Mediator for the purpose of bringing around some 2 Diary No. 44450/2025 settlement between the parties on the issue which we have highlighted. 8. The parties are directed to request the Learned Mediator for fixing a date for mediation. The fees etc. of the learned Mediator shall be fixed in consultation with the parties. 9. The venue of the mediation shall be decided mutually by the parties and the Learned Mediator. 10. Post this matter after a period of six weeks. (CHANDRESH) (POOJA SHARMA) ASTT. REGISTRARcumPS COURT MASTER (NSH) 3
1.Owners and Parties interested in vessel Navdhenu Purna having IMO No.9339765, Now lying at within VOC Port Limits, Tuticorin, Represented by its Master. 2.Arcadia Shipping Limited, Owners of Navdhenu Sun, Having IMO No.9246891, 222, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ... Defendants Prayer: This Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with Sections 3, 4, 5 and 16(2) and 3 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, prayed for the following reliefs: 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.55 of 2024 a) That a Judgment and decree for a sum of Rs.16,22,325/ (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs TwentyTwo Thousand Three Hundred and TwentyFive only) together with interest accrued therein from the date of plaint till date of realization on Rs.13,72,029/ (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs SeventyTwo Thousand and TwentyNine only) with interest @ 20.25% calculated as per "Sections 15 and 16 of MSMED Act, 2006. b) That the defendant Vessel1 be detained/arrested/restrained from sailing away from the Port Limit of Tuticorin/Indian Territorial Waters by an order of arrest/injunction, together with her hull, tackle engine, machinery, spares, gear, apparel, paraphernalia, furniture articles, things on board etc., c) That the defendant Vessel1 to be ordered and decreed to be sold through Court and the amounts realized be directed to be paid to the plaintiff towards the suit claim made in prayer (a) above. d) Award cost of the suit. For Plaintiff : Mr.Puhazh Gandhi.P JUDGMENT The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that after the order was passed by this Court on 06.03.2024, the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants has been settled. 2. To that effect, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has also 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.55 of 2024 filed an affidavit duly signed by one M.Gurunathan, who is an Authorized Representative of the plaintiff. 3. Paragraph 4 of the withdrawal affidavit reads as under: "4. I state that immediately thereafter the defendants made the full payment to the plaintiff and the matter is settled out of Court. Therefore, the plaintiff wishes to withdraw the suit as nothing survives. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the plaintiff to withdraw the suit in C.S.No.55 of 2024 and the consequential Application No.1302 of 2024 and further the Court Fee paid may be refunded to the plainti
Page 1 of 13 2 India, Branch Deepak Building Nehru Place, New Delhi in favour of the complainant, which on presentation the same was returned unpaid with the remarks "Insufficient Funds" vide returning memo dated 15.10.2016. Thereafter, complaint sent a legal notice dated 12.11.2016 by way of speed post upon the accused which was duly received by the accused and despite that payment of the cheques in question was not made by the accused within the stipulated time of 15 days. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 2. In the presummoning evidence, affidavit by way of evidence ExCW1/1 was filed by the complainant. In her affidavit of evidence ExCW1/1, the complainant reiterated all the averments made in his complaint and relied on documents are original cheque in question Ex. CW1/A, its return memo Ex. CW 1/B, office copy of legal notice Ex. CW1/C, postal receipt Ex. CW1/D, returned envelope Ex. CW1/E & tracking report Ex. CW1/F. The complaint is Ex. CW1/G. 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 24.12.2016. 3. Accused appeared pursuant to issuance of summons and notice U/s 251 CrPC was served upon the accused vide order dated 27.06.2017 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused stated that he had not taken any amount of Rs02 lacs from the complainant. Sh. Anand Kr Gupta had taken Rs50,000/ from the complainant through cheque and he has facilitated the said loan transaction between Sh. Anand Kr Gupta and complainant and Vinod Aggarwal Vs. Jai Kumar Gupta CC No. 476607/16 Page 2 of 13 3 complainant had taken cheques from him as well as from Sh. Anand Kr Gupta. Complainant had misused the cheques and had filed case against him as well as Sh. Anand Kr Gupta which is pending in this court titled Vinod Aggarwal vs Anand Kr Gupta (s/o Ashok Kr Gupta). Accused stated that he has no legal liability to pay the cheque amount to the complainant. 4. Thereafter, upon oral request of accused U/s 145(2) N I Act to cross examine complainant and his witnesses, the same was allowed vide order dated 26.04.2017 and the accused was given an opportunity to cross examine the complainant and his witnesses. Complainant was duly cross examined by the counsel Sh. Sanjay Kumar for the accused. No other complainant witness was produced by the complainant. There
SHREE KRISHNA EXPORTS Appearance: MR SHALIN MEHTA SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR DILIP B RANA(691) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 14,15,16,17,18 MR MEHUL SURESH SHAH SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR MANAN A SHAH(5412) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,10,11,12,13,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 Page 1 of 76 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:41:30 IST 2022 C/AO/30/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI Date : 24/12/2021 CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1 This appeal under Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Act, 1996") is at the instance of the original defendant No.1 and is directed against the order passed by the Small Cause Court (Commercial Court), Surat, dated 4 th February 2020 below Exhibit : 24 in the Commercial Civil Suit No.14 of 2019 instituted by the respondents Nos.1 to 13 respectively (original plaintiffs), by which the application Exhibit : 24 filed by the appellant herein, under Section 45 of the Act, 1996 to refer the parties to arbitration, came to be rejected. 2 The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarised as under: 3 For the sake of convenience, the parties before us shall be referred to as the plaintiffs and defendant. 4 All the plaintiffs are partnership firms engaged in the business of Diamond manufacturing. The plaintiffs entered into various agreements for the purchase of Scanning Machines such as the Solaris 100 Machine, Galaxy LR Hardware, Galaxy 1000 Machines, etc. The plaintiffs also entered into various agreements for the purchase of Planning Machines with the defendant herein. 5 The purchased machines are embedded and integrated with their respective software, such as Solaris 100 Software Infrastructure (in case Page 2 of 76 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 14:41:30 IST 2022 C/AO/30/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021 of Galaxy LR Hardware machines), GalScan and Gal3D software (in case of various Scanning machines), and Advisor Software (in case of Planning machines). These software programs that form an integrated part of the purchased machines and its functionality, were also purchased along with the purchased machines. The purchased machines and purchased software are collectively referred to as the "purchased product" consisting of the "Scanning Product" (Scanning machines embedded with its respective software) and "Planning Product" (Planning machines embedded with its respective software). 6 It is the case of the plaintiffs that it is virtually impossible to use the purchased machines without the purchased software. The Scanning Product is also interlinked with the Galatea's server (server of the defendant No.1) located in Israel that interfaces with the Scanning Product located in the
Appellant/Complainant and First Appeal No.905 of 2022 titled as "Branch Manager, PNB & Anr. Vs. Suresh Kumar Sharma", filed by F.A.No.596 of 2022 3 the Appellants/OPs No.1&2 shall be disposed off/decided by the common order as same questions of law and facts involved therein. 2 FA No.596 of 2022 has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short 'The Act') being aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kapurthala Camp Court at Ludhiana (in short 'the District Commission') whereby the Complaint of the Complainant had been partly allowed. FA No.905 of 2022 has been filed by the Opposite Parties No.1&2 being aggrieved by the order dated 25.04.2022. However, the facts are being extracted from FA No.596 of 2022. 3. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as had been arrayed before the District Commission. F.A.No.596 of 2022 4. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the complainant before the District Commission are that the Complainant Sh.Suresh Kumar, S/o Late Sh.Jagan Nath Sharma, was a partner in M/s Guide International Export Wing, 244A, Industrial Area A, Ludhiana. Said partnership Firm also included two brothers of the Compla
Kerala High Court M/S.Techno Engineering Corporation vs The Executive Engineer(E) on 9 March, 2020 W.P.(C).Nos.35597/19 & con.cases 1 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.35597 OF 2019(Y) PETITIONERS: M/S.TECHNO ENGINEERING CORPORATION, C/3102, INTERNATIONAL STADIUM, KALOOR, KOCHI 682017, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.V.R.NAIR, AGED 76 YEARS, SON OF LATE MR.A.K.VASUDEVAN NAIR. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SMT.ANILA PETER SRI.C.PRABIN BENNY SRI.S.SUDHEESH RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(E), BSNL ELECTRICAL DIVISION, 4TH FLOOR, CTO BUILDING, KARAKKATTU ROAD, ERNAKULAM682016. 2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E), BSNL ELECTRICAL DIVISION, 4TH FLOOR, SANCHAR BHAVAN, KOVILAKATHUMPADAM, TUDA ROAD, TRICHUR 680022. 3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E), BSNL ELECTRICAL DIVISION, 3RD FLOOR BSNL BHAVAN, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR670002. W.P.(C).Nos.35597/19 & con.cases 2 4 SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (E), BSNL ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, 2ND FLOOR TELEPHONE BHAVAN, ALAPPUZHA 688011. R14 BY SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP, SC, BSNL OTHER PRESENT: SR. ADV. SRI. R.D. AGRAWALA FOR BSNL AND GP. SMT. B.VINITHA AND SMT. PRINCY XAVIER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12022020, ALONG WITH WP(C).27660/2019(F) AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 09032020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).Nos.35597/19 & con.cases 3 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.27660 OF 2019(F) PETITIONERS: ALLIES FIRE SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. FIRST FLOOR, CITY SCAPE BUILDING, NR. POLICE STATION, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O, ERNAKULAM 682 033 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. THOMAS MANI BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL SMT.DIVYA SARA GEORGE SMT.JAISY ELZA JOE RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARYMINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, SANCHAR BHAWAN 20, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 001 REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY 2 BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD, BHARAT SANCHAR BHAVAN, HARISH CHANDRA MATHUR LANE, JANPATH , NEW DELHI 110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR W.P.(C).Nos.35597/19 & con.cases 4 3 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E) BSNL ELECTRICAL DIVISION, 4TH FLOOR, CTO BLDG. KARAKKATTU ROAD, ERNAKULAM 682 036 4 SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (E) OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER(E)BSNL KERALA ELECTRICAL ZONE, ADMN. BUILDING, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE COMPOUND, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 009 5 SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (E) O/O THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, BSNL ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, NR. IRON BRIDGE, ALAPPUZHA 688 001 6 ADDL.R6.NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695035 REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE MISSION DIRECTOR MR.KESHVENDRA KUMA IAS. 7 ADDL.R7.CHIEF ENGINEER BSNL KERALA CIVIL ZONE, 1ST FLOOR, ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695009. R1 BY SRI.RAJAGOPALAN.A., CGC R25 BY SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL R6 BY SRI.M.AJAY, SC, NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
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 22:33:27 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 indivi
Delhi High Court Indian Highways Management Company ... vs Sowil Limited on 21 December, 2021 $~9 (2021) * % Date of Decision: 21st December, 2021 + O.M.P. (COMM) 376/2021 & IA Nos. 17159/2021, 17160/ 2021 INDIAN HIGHWAYS MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Ms Padma Priya and Ms Shreya Sethi, Advocates. versus SOWiL LIMITED Through: Ms Manmeet Arora, Ms Pavitra Kaur and Mr Kartikeya Sharma, Advocates. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner (hereafter 'IHMCL') has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the A&C Act') impugning an arbitral award dated 11.10.2021 (hereafter 'the impugned award') rendered by an Arbitral Tribunal constituted by Justice (Retired) Badar Durrez Ahmed as the Sole Arbitrator (hereafter 'the Arbitral Tribunal'). 2. The Arbitral Tribunal has rendered the impugned award in the context of disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to a contract dated 28.10.2014 for "Conducting Traffic Surveys on National Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT O.M.P. (COMM) 376/2021 Page 1 of 23 RAWAL Highways in Zone5 (in the States of Odisha, West Bengal and North Eastern States) using Portable Automatic Traffic Counter & Classified (ATCC) Systems" (hereafter 'the Contract'). Factual Context 3. The respondent (hereafter 'SOWiL') is a small enterprise under the Micro, Small, Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006 (hereafter 'the MSMED Act') and is, inter alia, engaged in the business of providing consultancy services to various organizations for development works, railway works, bridges, structures and tunnelling. 4. IHMCL is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and provides services in relation to management of toll collection on National Highways through electronic toll systems; assessment of the volume of traffic; and collection of data through traffic surveys using portable Automatic Traffic Countercum Classifiers (ATCC). 5. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (hereafter 'MORTH') had instructed IHMCL to conduct traffic surveys on the National Highways in India. Accordingly, on 13.05.2015, IHMCL issued a Request for Proposal (hereafter '2014 RFP') inviting bids for conducting traffic surveys using portable ATCC in seven zones on the National Highways in India (hereafter 'the Project'). SOWiL participated in the bid for Zone5 and was declared as the successful bidder. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT O.M.P. (COMM) 376/2021 Page 2 of 23 RAWAL 6. IHMCL issued a Letter of Award (hereafter 'LOA') to SOWiL on 13.08.2014. Consequently, on 28.10.2014, the parties entered into the Contract in respect of the aforesaid Project, for a contract value of ₹68,03,80,000/. In terms of the Contract, SOWiL agreed to conduct traffic surveys twice a year for a period of five years, at the specified locations. 7. SOWiL claims that, during the term of the Contract, IHMCL issued another RFP on 0