abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 11 2 8,00,000/ the accused had issued a cheque bearing no. 294383 dated 12.08.2013 for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/, drawn on Vijaya Bank, Branch Malviya Nagar, New Delhi in favour of the complainant, which on presentation the same was returned unpaid with the remarks "Insufficient Funds" vide returning memo dated 14.08.2013. Thereafter, complaint sent a legal notice dated 07.09.2013 by way of registered A/D and speed post 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/X was filed by the complainant. In her affidavit of evidence ExCW1/X, 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. The complaint is Ex. CW1/Y. 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 18.12.2013. 3. Accused appeared pursuant to issuance of summons and notice U/s 251 CrPC was served upon the accused vide order dated 05.03.2014 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused stated that he has no liability towards the complainant. The cheque was not given to complainant. Complainant had taken the cheque from somebody else and filed the present Poonam Arora Vs. Sumit Arora CC No. 464976/16 Page 2 of 11 3 case. 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 her witnesses, the same was allowed vide order dated 21.12.2016 and the accused was given an opportunity to cross examine the complainant and her witnesses. Complainant was duly cross examined by Sh. M.K. Khanna, Ld. Counsel for the accused. No other complainant witness was produced by the complainant. Thereafter, CE was closed vide order dated 22.08.2017. 5. Thereafter, the plea of the accused Sumit Arora was recorded U/s 313 CrPC r/w 281 CrPC on 18.01.2018, wherein, all material existing on record including the exhibited documents were put to accused. The accused stated that he had not given the cheque in question to the complainant. He had issued the cheque in question to Jagbir Pawar and he had proof regarding the same. He has no lega
Delhi High Court Orders Ashima Goyal vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr on 23 May, 2023 $~50 * + LPA 458/2023 ASHIMA GOYAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. A. K. Singla, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Akash Jandial, Advocates. versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Mr. Sushant Bali and Mr. Kunal Mittal, Advocate for R2. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD ORDER % 23.05.2023 CM APPL. 27534/2023 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. LPA 458/2023 & CM APPLs. 27533/2023, 27535/2023 1. The present LPA arises out of the Judgment dated 28.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 3953/2023 in case of "Ashima Goyal vs. Reserve Bank of India" 2. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant herein applied for a term loan to the tune of Rs.4,60,00,000/ which was sanctioned on 18.09.2019. The account of the Appellant was declared as NonPerforming Asset (NPA) on 16.06.2021 and thereafter, the proceedings were initiated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act against the Appellant. The Appellant, after being aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by Respondent No.2, preferred an appeal bearing SA No.119/2022 under Section 17 of the LPA 458/2023 Page 1 of 17 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be reverified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2023 at 22:30:53 SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The DRTIII, Delhi dismissed the said appeal vide Order dated 14.09.2022. It is stated that after suffering a dismissal from the DRT, the Appellant approached Respondent No.2 with One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal and at the same time also preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) 14779/2023 praying for issuance of a direction to Respondent No.2 to close the Appellant‟s loan account under OTS proposal. This Court directed the Respondents to consider the OTS proposal of the Appellant. However, the same was not considered by the Respondents. The Appellant, thereafter, again filed a second writ petition being W.P.(C) 3953/2023 praying for the following reliefs: "(i) direct respondent no. 1 in exercise its power U/s 45 (JA) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 to require respondent no. 2 to adhere to NPA norms applicable to MSME loa
Madras High Court Santhalingam vs The Director on 18 June, 2019 1 Dated 18.06.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.OP.No.12174/2019 Santhalingam .. Petitioner/Accused Vs 1.The Director Central Bureau of Investigation Flat No.5B, 6th Floor CGO Complex, Lodhi Road Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Marg New Delhi 110 003. 2.The Superintendent of Police Central Bureau of Investigation Economic Offences Wing No.4A, Wing Rajaji Bhavan 3rd Floor, 3rd Avenue, Besant Nagar Chennai 600 090. .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case on the basis of the complaint dated 27.12.2018. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vivekananthan For Respondents : Mr.K.Srinivasan, Spl.PP [CBI] ORDER The above petition has been filed seeking to direct the 2nd respondent to register a case based on the petitioner's complaint dated 27.12.2018. http://www.judis.nic.in 2 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had preferred a complaint on 27.12.2018 to the respondents against the officials in the State Bank of India, Small Scale Industries Branch, Karur, in respect of fraudulently granting loans to the extent of Rs.21 Crores, based on the property worth about Rs.1.74 Crores. He would submit that since no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present petition seeking for a direction. 3 When the matter is taken up today, the learned Special Public Prosecutor [CBI] would submit that the respondents have not taken any action on the petitioner's complaint dated 27.12.2018 and that they have returned the complaint to the petitioner vide Correspondence dated 14.06.2019 and in the said Correspondence, the respondents have stated the following reasons for not taking action: (1)The matter relates to a private complaint. The CBI takes up the matters for investigation of serious frauds taking place in PSU's and other Government Organizations but the CBI does not entertain complaint of Private Persons in such type of cases. (2)It appears from the petition and the complaint that there is a personal dispute with S.Palanisamy and others and several litigations http://www.judis.nic.in 3 pertaining to them are pending in the different Courts since long. (3)A copy of your letter dated 30.05.2019 addressed to the DGM, State Bank of India has been received which encloses a letter dated 27.05.2019 of the DGM, SBI which reveals that the properties mentioned by you were discharged post settlement of loan dues by M/s.Windsor Cotton Mills Private Limited way back in the year 2011. So, clearly now the mortgage entertained by the Bank does
1. M/S RAJASTHAN LAND HOLDINGS LIMITED A company incorporated under Companies Act 1956 Through its Director Address: R/o 1st Floor, LIC Jeevan Nidhi Building, Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302021 ...Respondent No.1 2. ANURADHA GUPTA Erstwhile Resolution Professional of M/s Rajasthan Land Holdings Limited Address: E194, Ambabari, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan302039 ...Respondent No.2 3. IL&FS TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS LIMITED A company incorporated under Companies Act 1956 Through its Director Address: The IL&FS Financial Centre, Plot C22, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai 400051 ...Respondent No.3 4. HILINE BUILDCON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED A company incorporated under Companies Act 1956 Through its Director Address: 13, Parivahan Marg, Civil, Lines, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302001 ...Respondent No.4 5. BHANDARI & CO. Through its Authorised Representative Address: P7, Tilak Marg, CScheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan302001 ...Respondent No.5 Present: For Appellant : Mr. Kshitij Mittal, Mr. Abhyuday Singh, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Rishabh Parikh, Ms. Niyati Kohli, Advocates for R1. Mr. Raunak Dhillon, Ms. Isha Malik, Mr. Nihaad Dewan, Mr. Anchit Jasuja, Mr. Vikash Kumar Jha, Advocates for R 3 (ITNL). WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 785 of 2023 [Arising out of the Impugned Order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench in IA No.100/JPR/2020 & CP No. (IB) 44/9/JPR/2019] In the matter of: ANURADHA GUPTA, ERSTWHILE RP OF M/s. Rajasthan Land Holdings Limited, R/0 E194, Amba Bari, Jaipur302039, Rajasthan ...Appellant Versus 1. M/S. RAJPUTANA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., R/o 13, Parivahan Marg, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302001. ...Respondent No.1 2. M/S. HI LINE BUILDCON (INDIA) PVT. LTD., R/o 13, Parivahan Marg, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302001. ...Respondent No.2 3. M/s S. BHANDARI & CO., R/o P7, Tilak Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur302005 ...Respondent No.3 4. IL&FS TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS LIMITED, R/o THE IL&FS Financial Centre, Plot C22, G Block, Bandra, Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai400051 ...Respondent No.4 Present: Page 2 of 23 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 853 & 785 of 2023 For Appellant : Mr. Yash Tandon, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rishabh Parikh, Ms. Niyati Kohli, Advocates. Mr. Raunak Dhillon, Ms. Isha Malik, Mr. Nihaad Dewan, Mr. Anchit Jasuja, Mr. Vikash Kumar Jha, Advocates for R 4 (ITNL). JUDGMENT (Hybrid Mode) Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical) The present set of two appeals filed under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 ('IBC' in short) by the Appellants arises out of a common Order dated 20.04.2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order') passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench) in IA No. 100/JPR/2020 in CP No. (IB) 44/9/JPR/2019. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority h
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 04:15:51 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 i
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Industries, Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Director, Department of Industries, Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Micro and Small Industries Facilitation Council, through its Chairman, Patna. 4. The Best Towers Private Limited, 9/2 BIADA Industrial Estate, Patliputra, Patna, through its Managing Director. .... .... Respondents With Reliance Communications Limited, having its registered Office at H Block, 1st Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai 400071, through its authorised Signatory Mukesh Kumar aged about 40 years, Son of Gopal Sharan Singh, Gandhinagar, Aashiana Nagar, Sector 4, Police StationRajiv Nagar, Patna800025 (Bihar). .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Industries, Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Director, Department of Industries, Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Micro and Small Industries Facilitation Council, through its Chairman, Patna. 4. The Best Towers Private Limited, 9/2 BIADA Industrial Estate, Patliputra, Patna, through its Managing Director. .... .... Respondents (In CWJC No.8077 of 2018) For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Narain, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha Mr. Anuj Prakash, Advocates. Patna High Court CWJC No.8077 of 2018 2 For the Respondents : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Mr. Jai Kishore Sharma Mrs. Ranjeeta Singh, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Kinkar Kumar, SC9 Mr. Avinash Shekhar, AC to SC6 (In CWJC No.8086 of 2018) For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Narain, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha Mr. Anuj Prakash, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Mr. Jai Kishore Sharma Mrs. Ranjeeta Singh, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Kinkar Kumar, SC9 Mr. Avinash Shekhar, AC to SC6 CAV JUDGMENT Date: 19062018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for quashing the common order dated 06.02.2018 passed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, Patna (hereinafter referred to as "the Council") in Reference Case No. 05/2015 and Reference Case No. 01/2016 in which the petitioner has been directed to make payment of a sum of Rs. 4,91,33,701/ plus compound interest totalling to Rs. 62,08,65,575/, and a sum of Rs. 2,04,44,080/ plus compound interest totaling to Rs. 25,25,01,087/ respectively as on 30.09.2017 to respondent no. 4 against the latter's unpaid bills; and for restraining the Council from passing further orders in the said matters. 3. The facts of both cases are almost identical and both writ petitions are accordingly taken up for disposal together at the Patna High Court CWJC No.8077 of 2018 3 admission stage itself with the consent of parties. 4. The brief facts according to
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 (अपीलाथ /Ap
Rabindra Kumar Mintri & Ors ... Respondents Present: For Appellants: Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Ms. Priyanka Bhatt, Ms. Honey Satpal, Ms. Vaishnavi Prakash, Ms. Ritika Prasad, Mr. Rajeev Chowdhary, Ms. Nandini Choudha and Ms. Namrata Sarogi, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Anuja Pethia, Mr. Noor Shergill, Mr. Rishabh Govila and Ms. Diksha Dadu, Advocates for SRA. Mr. Apoorv Agarwal and Ms. Akshita Singh, Advocate for RP. Mr. Rachit Mittal, Mr. Parish Mishra and Mr. Adarsh Srivastava, Advocate for R2. With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 816 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2952 of 2024 (Arising out of Order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Principal Bench I.A. No.2518/2021 in (IB)923(PB)/2018) IN THE MATTER OF: Yashveer Singh ... Appellant Versus Rabindra Kumar Mintri & Ors ... Respondents Present: For Appellants: Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nipun Gautam, Ms. Udita Singh, Mr. Kshitij Wadhwa and Ms. Bani Brar, Advocates. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 795, 816 & 817 of 2024 1 For Respondents: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Anuja Pethia, Mr. Noor Shergill, Mr. Rishabh Govila and Ms. Diksha Daddu, Advocates for SRA. Mr. Apoorv Agarwal and Ms. Akshita Singh, Advocate for RP. Mr. Rachit Mittal, Mr. Parish Mishra and Mr. Adarsh Srivastava, Advocate for R2. With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 817 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2954 of 2024 (Arising out of Order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Principal Bench I.A. No.2518/2021 in (IB)923(PB)/2018) IN THE MATTER OF: Reena ... Appellant Versus Rabindra Kumar Mintri & Ors ... Respondents Present: For Appellants: Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nipun Gautam, Ms. Udita Singh, Mr. Kshitij Wadhwa and Ms. Bani Brar, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Anuja Pethia, Mr. Noor Shergill, Mr. Rishabh Govila and Ms. Diksha Daddu, Advocates for SRA. Mr. Apoorv Agarwal and Ms. Akshita Singh, Advocate for RP. Mr. Rachit Mittal, Mr. Parish Mishra and Mr. Adarsh Srivastava, Advocate for R2. JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. These three Appeal(s) have been filed against the same order dated 05.03.2024 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Principal Bench in IA No.2518/2021, IA No.3615/2022 and IA Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 795, 816 & 817 of 2024 2 No.4172/2022, by which order, all the aforesaid IAs were disposed of and with respect to other IAs, the Adjudicating Authority directed the same to be listed on 30.04.2024. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.03.2024, these Appeal(s) have been filed. 2. We may first notice the facts giving rise to these Appeal(s). Facts in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 795 of 2024 are noted first and facts in other two Appeal(s) shall be separately noticed: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 795 of 2024 (i) The Appellant claims to have paid consideration towards allotment of 50 flats in the Project of M/s Today Homes Noida Pvt. Ltd., i.e., 'Ridge Residency
Orissa High Court Executive Engineer vs The Chairman on 24 July, 2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Designation: ARcumSenior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 25Jul2024 19:53:49 W.P.(C) NO. 17259 OF 2024 Executive Engineer, Electrical Stores .... Petitioners Division, TPSODL, Berhampur, Ganjam and others Mr. Durga Prasad Nanda, Senior Advocate being assisted by Mr. Rupesh Kumar Kanungo, Advocate versus The Chairman, Director of Industries, .... Opp. Parties M.S.E.F.C., Directorate of Odisha, Cuttack and others Mr. Gouri Mohan Rath, Advocate (For Opp. Party No.2) JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA ORDER Order No. 24.07.2024 1. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Appearance memo of Mr. Durga Prasad Nanda, learned Senior Advocate filed in Court is taken on record. 2.1 Mr. Gouri Mohan Rath, learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 by filing Vakalatnama in Court, which is taken on record. 3. Order dated 6th July, 2024 (Annexure2) passed in I.A. No.5 of 2024 (arising out of E.P. Case No.5 of 2024) is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby learned Senior Civil Judge, Commercial Court, Berhampur, Ganjam rejected an application filed by the Petitioners under Section 47 C.P.C. 4. Shorn of the unnecessary details, the Opposite Party No.2, namely, M/s United Electricals and Engineering Private Limited, made a reference to the MSEF Council (for short 'Council') claiming an amount of Rs.83,76,558.03 along with interest, which was registered as MSEFC Case No.12 of 2017 Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Designation: ARcumSenior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 25Jul2024 19:53:49 under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short 'MSMED Act'). The Petitioners filed written objection to the claim petition. An award was passed on 11th May, 2018 in MSEFC Case No.12 of 2017. Assailing the same, the Petitioners preferred W.P.(C) No. 21182 of 2018 before this Court, which was disposed of on 16 th September, 2019 granting liberty to the Petitioners to file appeal under Section 19 of the MSMED Act read with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Arbitration Act'). The Petitioners being not satisfied preferred Writ Appeal No.501 of 2019, which was disposed of on 6th February, 2020 extending time to prefer appeal under Section 19 of the MSMED Act. Still not satisfied, the Petitioners preferred SLP(C) No. 16034 of 2020 before Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 26th February, 2021. Thereafter, the Petitioners filed an appeal under Section 19 of the MSMED Act in CMA No.17 of 2021 along with an application under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act. Said appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation vide order d