abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
1. M/s BGR Energy Systems Ltd. 2. Mrs. Sasikala Raghupathy Chairperson at M/s BGR Energy Systems Ltd. 3. Mr. Arjun Govind Raghupathy Managing Director at M/s BGR Energy Systems Ltd. All at: 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet Chennai, Tamil Nadu Pin Code 600018 All Also at: A5, Pannamgadu Industrial Estate Ramapuram Post, Nellore District Andhra Pradesh 524401 .....Defendants Date of Institution : 16.11.2024 Date of Arguments : 24.03.2025 Date of Judgement : 19.04.2025 JUDGMENT 1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the Summary Suit filed by CS (COMM)/975/2024 Page 1 of 7 the plaintiff under Order XXXVII CPC seeking recovery of Rs.89,83,790/ (Rs.Eighty Nine Lac Eighty three Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Only) alongwith interest @18% per annum. 2. Briefly stated, facts averred in the plaint are : (i) That the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm and is a manufacturer and stockist for hiring of various mild steel construction aid products and material including M.S. Cup Lock Scaffolding, Scaffolding Pipes, Adjustable Props, Screw 'U' Head Jacks, Clamps, base Plates, Challies, Channels (ISMC), Steel Shuttering Plates, Slotted Plates Wallforms), Soldiers, Spans, Girders (ISMB) etc. which falls under the category of construction aid products and sometimes in March 2018, defendants approached the plaintiff for supply of the construction aid products and material on hire basis for their projects at Ghatampur, Kanpur (UP) and after negotiations, defendants issued service order no. 3300023158 (order I) dated 18.04.2018 which was extended vide another service order no. 3300024811 dated 27.09.2018 (order II) and the said service orders clearly mentions that monthly hire charges should be remitted within 30 days and in case of any shortfall in return of hired material, defendants shall compensate the plaintiff. (ii) That plaintiff supplied various construction material to defendant no.1 vide delivery challans no.4217, 4218, 4288, 4291, 4297, 4303 and 4307 and plaintiff raised regular monthly tax invoices upon the defendant no.1 for the rental dues starting from 01.05.2018 to 01.08.2019 and 01.03.2019 CS (COMM)/975/2024 Page 2 of 7 to 01.05.2023, however, defendants have made part payments of Rs.7,91,908/ against the total sum of of monthly invoices of order 1 (i.e. Rs.11,91,408/) and an amount of Rs.11,95,946/ against the sum of monthly invoices of order II (i.e. Rs.42,55,191/). It is stated that no material of any of the order was returned by the defendants to the plaintiff till date and thus, defendants are bound to pay the replacement cost of the construction aid material. (iii) That every time invoice was raised, plaintiff had to deposit the GST share of the defendants (18%) and thus, apart from nonrecovery of the said invoice amounts, plaintiff had to bear the financial loss in the form of payment of 18% GST and to avoid the GST loss, plaintiff was advised to raise proforma invoices from June 2023 for calculation and record purposes inasmuch as the liability of defendant no.1 is concerned. (iv) That plaintiff approached the defendants through letters, emails, personal visits and telephonic conversation but all
M/s Swadeshi Civil Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 302, DLF Tower B, Jasola, New Delhi 110025. ........Respondent Date of institution : 27.11.2019 Date on which order was reserved : 05.10.2020 Date of pronouncement of the order : 15.10.2020 ORDER 1. The petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as 'Arbitration Act') has been filed with the following prayer :­ "(a) Set aside the impugned award dated 29.08.2019 to the effect that the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has rejected the counter claims CS (Comm) No. 131/19 Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation. vs. M/s Swadeshi Civil Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Page 1 of 68 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court) /SE/Saket/ND/15.10.2020 of the petitioner, and / or (b) Award of the cost of the present petition to the petitioner. (c) Pass any other order or further orders which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice." 2. The brief facts which gave rise to the present petition as alleged in the petition are that the petitioner an undertaking of Government of NCT of Delhi offers a vide range of spectrum of service to tourist and also the citizens of Delhi. Respondent M/s Swadeshi Civil Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is a contractor and also was a successful bidder being a lowest bidder and an agreement was executed between the parties vide agreement dated 21.08.2011 annexure­P4. The stipulated date of completion was 20.04.2013. The tendered amount was Rs. 38,98,47,69/­. The respondent herein / claimant completed the work on 20.05.2014. The petitioner / counter claimant made the full and final payment of Rs. 75,15,22,176/­ on 12.08.2016 which was based on the final bill submitted by the respondent / claimant. 3. Further the respondent / claimant raised a dispute raising additional claims before the Executive Engineer and accordingly invoked arbitration clause for settlement of dispute inter­se parties. On 27.06.2017, the Chief Engineer of the petitioner corporation appointed Sh. Om Prakash Bhatia, Former Additional Director General, CPWD as Sole Arbitrator. Further, CS (Comm) No. 131/19 Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation. vs. M/s Swadeshi Civil Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
2. Briefly stated, the material averments on the basis of which the present suit has been filed are as follows: (a) The Plaintiff is a Pvt. Ltd. company and is inter alia engaged in export of chemicals to its clients predominantly based in the Middle East. (b) The Defendant is the proprietor of M/s MOAB at B10, Nightingale Apartments, Vikaspuri, New Delhi110018, a proprietorship firm registered under MSME having its office at 502, ABI, Mapsko Casabella Tower, Gurugram, Haryana, 122004. (c) The Defendant approached and offered for sale to the Plaintiff, 3M N95 8210 Respirator Masks (hereinafter referred to as "Product") at a unit price of Rs. 208/ against 1,00,000/ total units in addition of GST and transportation costs. (d) The offer of the Defendant was accepted by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff placed a purchase Order dated 11.06.2020 upon the Defendant for purchasing one lakh masks and an agreement dated 12.06.2020 was reached between the parties via emails as per which the Plaintiff was liable to pay a total costs of Rs. 2,18,44,000/ to the Defendant against the aforementioned purchase which included GST as well as transportation costs. (e) In pursuance of the aforementioned agreement the Plaintiff paid 50% of the aforementioned amount i.e. 1,09,22,000/ to the Defendant and the Defendant undertook to supply the goods within 15 days of the receipt of the advance amount. (f) The Defendant however failed to honour the terms of the aforementioned agreement and did not deliver any goods to the Plaintiff. As a result of the non performance of its obligations by the Defendant, the agreement dated 12.06.2020 stood terminated and the Defendant promised to repay to the Defendant the advance amount of Rs. 1,09,22,000. She also refunded the amounts of Rs. 50 Lacs on 25.02.2020, Rs. 25,000/ on 05.07.2020 and Rs. 20 Digitally CS (Comm) 531/21 M/s Universal Performance Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Monalisa Das Page 2 of 6 ANU signed by ANU GROVER BALIGA GROVER Date: BALIGA 2025.05.05
1.Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai, Represented by its Chairman, Guindy, Chennai600 032. 2.iCube Projects Having its registered office at No.52/103A, 4th Street, Abhiramapuram, Chennai600 018. … Respondents 1/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.9912 of 2020 Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in Order No.MSEFC/CR/02/2017 dated 11.07.2018, and quash the said order, and consequently, direct the first respondent to consider the petition made by the second respondent, in accordance with Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and the Tamil Nadu Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council Rule, 2006. For Petitioner : Ms.Nalina Mayedowda Senior Counsel for M/s.Vivrti Law For Respondents : Mr.Surya Senthil for M/s.Surana and Surana for R2 R1 No Appearance ORDER The petitioner herein challenges the proceedings of the first respondent dated 11.07.2018 in MSEFC/CR/02/2017. 2.The petitioner introduces the second respondent herein as its subcontractor. On 26.11.2014, it entered into a works contract with the 2/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.9912 of 2020 second respondent for the latter to execute some work in some locality in Bangalore. The initial value of the contract was around Rs.16.22 lakhs and after multiple revisions, finally, the value of the contract was fixed at Rs.7.80 Crores. 3.The petitioner would allege that the second respondent did not execute the work as per the time schedule prescribed. Indeed, the petitioner was constrained to remind the second respondent of the delay vide its correspondences dated 02.04.2015, 30.04.2015, 05.05.2015, and lastly on 10.03.2016. With the last mentioned correspondence, the petitioner had settled the bills of the second respondent but with a counter claim for reimbursement of Rs.27,08,852/. 4.Thereafter, the second respondent would move the first respondent with a claim against the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,06,63,968/ plus the interest amount of Rs.90,86,956/. The first respondent took cognizance of the same in MSEFC/CR/02/2017. As per the scheme of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter in
Andhra Pradesh High Court Amravati G. Satyanarayana, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 24 January, 2025 1 *HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI +WRIT PETITION NO: 9996, 11089 & 11476/2021 and 29140/2023 +WP No.9996/2021 Between: #G. Kiranmai and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND $The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 24.01.2025 THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes 3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes ___________________________________ DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO 2 * THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9996, 11089 & 11476/2021 and 29140/2023 % 24.01.2025 +WP No.9996/2021 # Between: #G. Kiranmai and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND $The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ghanta Rama Rao Sri Ghanta Sridhar Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy Sri K. Raghuveer ! Counsel for Respondents: Advocate General Sri M. Vijay Kumar Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy Sri Venkata Rao Ms. Jyothirathna Anumolu Sri Surendra Rao Sri Srnivasa Rao Madiraju Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri Sri C. Srinivasa Baba 3 <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. MANU/SC/0776/1999 2. MANU/SC/0644/1987 3. MANU/SC/8149/2006 4. AIR 1968 SC 850 5. (1998) 2 SCC 523 6. (1982) 2 SSC 116 7. (2022)1 SCC 352 8. 1985 (Supp) SCC 218 9. 1975 (2) SCC 553 10. 1981 4 SCC 130 11. 1982 (2) SCC 116 12. 1985 (Supp) SCC 218 13. 1987 (4) SCC 566 14. 1998 (2) SCC 523 15. 2000(1) SCC 644 16 2006 (8) SCC 129 17 (1991) 2 SCC 295 18 (1967) SLR 753 19 AIR 1962 SC 1044 20 (2022) 1 SCC 352 4 APHC010181552021 AT AMARAVATI [3310] ((Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9996 9996, 11089 & 11476/2021 and 29140/2023 WP No.996 of 2021 Between: G. Kiranmai and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 5 1. GHANTA SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Y.NAGI REDDY (APSPDCL) 2. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL 3. GP FOR ENERGY (AP) 4. V R REDDY KOVVURI 5. V V SATISH The Court made the following: COMMONORDER : As the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same, and therefore, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order. 2. The WP Nos.9996, 11089 of 2021 are filed challenging the Memo of the 2nd respondent in Memo No. APCPDCL/CMD/DIR(TECH)/ GM(HR)/DGM/ PO(Adm)/ Asst./D.No.992/21, dated 17.03.2021 unsettling petitioners' settled seniority basing upon the seniority in the Cadre of Assistant Engineer instead of taking into consideration of the Seniority in the cadre of the Deputy Executive Engineer as the same is arbitrary and illegal.
Madras High Court A.Raman vs Shanmugasundaram on 21 April, 2021 W.A.(MD)Nos.1708 and 1738 of 2021 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 03.12.2024 DELIVERED ON : 27.01.2025 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR W.A.(MD)Nos.1708 and 1738 of 2021 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.7297 and 7378 of 2021 W.A.(MD)No.1708 of 2021: A.Raman ... Appellant vs 1.Shanmugasundaram 2.The Regional Transport Authority, Trichy West, Trichy. ...Respondents Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.11358 of 2020, dated 21.04.2021 on the file of this Court. _______________ Page 1 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)Nos.1708 and 1738 of 2021 For Appellant :Mr.M.Palani For R1 :Mr.J.Anand Kumar For R2 :Mrs.D.Farjana Ghousia Special Government Pleader W.A.(MD)No.1738 of 2021: The Regional Transport Authority, Trichy West, Trichy. ... Appellant vs 1.Shanmugasundaram 2.A.Raman ...Respondents Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.11358 of 2020, dated 21.04.2021 on the file of this Court. For Appellant :Mrs.D.Farjana Ghousia Special Government Pleader For R1 :Mr.J.Anand Kumar For R2 :Mr.M.Palani ***** COMMON JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was made by N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.] Aggrieved by the order passed in W.P(MD)No.11358 of 2020, dated 21.04.2021, the first and second respondents in the Writ Petition had filed W.A(MD)Nos.1738 and 1708 of 2021, respectively. _______________ Page 2 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)Nos.1708 and 1738 of 2021 2.For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties are referred as Writ Petitioner and respondents, as referred in the Writ Petition. 3.The Writ Petitioner had filed the above Writ Petition challenging the impugned proceedings passed by the first respondent in R.No.105630/A2/2005, dated 18.06.2020. The case of the Writ Petitioner is that he had applied for permit to operate minibus from Puthanatham to Kaulpannai on 04.12.2002. As no order was passed by the first respondent, a Writ Petition was filed in W.P.No.1786 of 2003 and a direction was issued to the authority to consider the same. 4.Thereafter, the Writ Petitioner had filed an application seeking permit for a modified route from Puthanatham to Kadaipitchampatti. The authority had rejected the said application on 28.07.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the Writ Petitioner had filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the said appeal was allowed on 01.11.2004 with a direction to the first respondent to consider the modified route. The said remand order of the State Transport Appellate
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 15:56:07 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
DEFENDANTS : 1. M/.s Bharath Tex, No.5/809/C, Ferry Road, Ernakulam, Kerala683 104. [email protected] (Exparte) 2. Biju Joseph, C/o Trivia Travel and Tourism, No.742, S2, 1st Floor, Carpenters Ark Building, Chembumukku, Vazhakkala, Ernakulam670 633 [email protected] 9497156000 (Exparte) /2/ Com.O.S.No.894/2021 3. Sindhu Joseph V/695, Ferry Road, Near Masjid, Ernakulam, Kerala683 104 [email protected] 9400150222 (Exparte) Date of Institution of : 17.12.2021 suit Nature of suit : Money Suit (suit on pronote, suit for declaration and possession suit for injunction, etc.,) Date of : 07.03.2022 commencement of recording of evidence Date of judgment : 18.03.2022 Total duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s 00 03 01 (S.J.KRISHNA) LXXXIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. (CCH90) JUDGMENT The Plaintiff has filed this suit against defendants praying the Court to pass a judgment and decree against the defendants to pay a sum of ₹.18,69,464/ along with /3/ Com.O.S.No.894/2021 interest at 24% p.a from the date of suit until realisation from the defendants; pass a decree along with litigation cost for filing case before MSFC, costs for sending the legal Notice, Costs for filing PreInstitution Mediation before DSLA, costs to file the present case, along with cost to visit Kerala for follow up, along with damages;grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of this case along with costs of this suit. The Summary of the case of the plaintiff is as under: 02. The plaintiff is a Proprietorship firm carrying on its business in silk and cotton fabrics under the name and style 'Karnataka Silk Emporium'. The plaintiff is engaged in manufacture and sale of fabrics having customers across the country. 03. The plaintiff firm is family run business by the father as the proprietor and the son Mr.Anil Sarda as the authorised representative vide Power of Attorney dated 21.04.2021. /4/ Com.O.S.No.894/2021 04. The defendant No.1 is the firm operated by the defendant No.2 and 3, being husband and wife and defendant No.2 is the proprietor of the defendant No. 1. The defendants having acquainted with the plaintiff approached the plaintiff for the supply of fabrics for his requirements and established a business relationship with the plaintiff. The plaintiff used to supply the fabrics as per the defendant's specific orders. 05. The defendant would call the plaintiff and place the order, based on the order, the plaintiff would supply the material to Kerala and raise the invoices. The defendant had a credit period of 90 days for payment failing which is liable to pay interest at 18% p.a. and cost. 06. The plaintiff has furnished the copy of original invoices, delivery challans, EWay bills as shown below in support of its case. Sl. Particulars No. 1 Original Invoice No.F237/1819 dated 06.06.2018 2 Delivery Challan dated 05.06.2018 3 Eway bill 171043104119 4. Tax Invoice No.237/1819 dated 06.06.2018 5. Delivery Challan bg
State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing – II, Guindy, Chennai – 32. ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to revise and set aside the order dated 26.10.2023 of the Special Court in Crl.M.P.No.4001 of 2023 in C.C.No.6 of 2020 on the 1/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1848, 1849, 1872, 1874, 1875, 1885 and 1888 to 1891 of 2023 file of the Special Court for Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors [in Financial Establishment] Act, Chennai. For Petitioners in all Crl.R.Cs : Mr.R.Subramanian PartyinPerson For Respondent in all Crl.RCs. : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor COMMON ORDER The petitioners who are accused in C.C.No.6 of 2020 filed petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.4001, 3996, 3997, 3998, 3999 and 4000 pf 2023 before the learned Special Judge under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors [in Financial Establishment] Act, 1997, Chennai to reopen the case for concise arguments of the petitioners by correcting the adjudication dated 20.10.2023. The Lower Court by separate orders dated 26.10.2023 dismissed the petitions. Against which, the present revisions petitions filed. 2.A1 is the financial establishment and A4 is the Managing Director. Though names of several Advocates were shown, A4 appeared partyin 2/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.Nos.1848, 1849, 1872, 1874, 1875, 1885 and 1888 to 1891 of 2023 person for himself as well as for A1 Company and others both before the Lower Court as well as before this Court. 3.The primary contentions of the petitioners is that a final report was filed on 17.07.2019 before the Special Court in which 14 persons were arrayed as accused listing 775 complaints out of 1000 complaints received and rest of the complaints were reported to be under investigation. The final report was returned for some defects. On 11.10.2020, final report was re submitted, at that time, again 14 persons were shown as accused and 547 persons were shown as victims against the earlier projection of 775 persons. On 16.10.2020, the