abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
M/s.Clean Coats Private Limited, a company) incorporated under the Companies Act,1956 ) and having its registered office at K30/1, ) MIDC, Anand Nagar, Ambernath (E), ) District Thane 421 506. ) .. Respondent Mr.G.R. Joshi, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Raj Panchnnatia a/w Mr.Ayush Agarwala a/w Mr.Anindya Basarkod a/w Mr.Nishant Prasad i/by M/s.Khaitan & Co. for the Appellant/Applicant. Mr.Ashwin Ankhad a/w Ms.Nishita Mohanty i/by M/s. Ashwin Ankhad & Associates for the respondent. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. RESERVED ON : 13th July 2016 PRONOUNCED ON : 20th July 2016 Judgment : . By this appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Arbitration Act"), the appellant has impugned the order dated 13th June 2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thane allowing the application filed by the respondent ::: Uploaded on 20/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on 20/07/2016 23:59:04 ::: ppn 2 arast18470.16(j).doc herein raising a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the application filed by the appellant herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and holding that the said arbitration application was not maintainable. Learned Principal District Judge rejected the arbitration application filed by the appellant praying for setting aside the impugned award dated 17th March 2015. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under : 2. The appellant had issued a work order dated 9 th January 2008 to the respondent for Epoxy flooring, coving, hygiene PU wall coating and other specialty coating at its hospital in Chennai. The total value of the work order was Rs.1,09,55,852/. The dispute arose between the parties. The respondent herein made an application before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Konkan Region, Thane (Reference Petition No.19 of 2013) inter alia praying for an amount of Rs.21,17,361/ against the appellant herein. The appellant herein filed an application before the said council appointed under the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short "the said MSMED Act") challenging its jurisdiction and also raised various objections regarding the claims of the respondent on merits. The said council made an award on 17th March 2015 directing the appellant to pay the principal amount of Rs.10,31,915/ to the respondent and interest thereon as per the provisions of Section 16 of the said MSMED Act. 3. The appellant herein filed a Civil Miscellaneous Application No.236 of 2015 before the learned Principal District Judge, Thane under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act or thereby impugning the said award dated 17th March 2015 rendered by the said council. ::: Uploaded on 20/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on 20/07/2016 23:59:04 ::: ppn 3
Delhi High Court Orders Er. Rajainderr Aina@ Rajender Jaina vs Mtnl on 10 January, 2020 $~1 * + ARB.P. 865/2019 ER. RAJAINDERR AINA@ RAJENDER JAINA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal, Advocate versus MTNL ..... Respondent Through Ms. Raashi Beri, Advocate with Mr. Arun Sanwal, Advocate HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH ORDER % 10.01.2020 On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent had sought time to take instructions in the matter. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of the Court to the Arbitration Clause referred to at page 14 of the petition. The said clause reads as under: "ARBITRATION CLAUSE FOR ALL CONTRACTS WITH INDIAN AND FOREIGN PARTIES (EXCEPT PSU'S AND GOVT. DEPARTMENTS). All disputes or differences whatsoever arising between the parties out of or relating to the construction, meaning and operations or effect of this contract of the breach thereof shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration of the Indian Council for Arbitration Dispute Regulation and the award made in pursuance thereof shall be binding on the parties. Such arbitration shall be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996." Learned counsel points out that the Arbitration Clause, as referred to and relied upon for the purpose of this petition, clearly excludes the PSUs and other Government departments from the said arbitration clause. Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the said clause would not apply to the present petition. In view of the above, the present petition cannot be allowed. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take recourse to any other remedy which may be available to him in accordance with law. JYOTI SINGH, J JANUARY 10, 2020 jitender/
UNION OF INDIA Appearance: MS GARIMA MALHOTRA FOR MR. KM ANTANI for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR.MANAN BHATT(6535) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3 Date : 26/07/2022 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. RULE. Learned advocate Mr.Manan Bhatt waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.2. 2. A short issue is involved in this writ petition and hence, the same is heard and decided today. 3. At the outset, learned advocate Ms.Garima Malhotra appearing for the petitioner has Page 1 of 10 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 21:59:10 IST 2022 C/SCA/22420/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 submitted that so far as the prayer No.12(a) is concerned, the same would not survive in view of the communication dated 30.07.2021 issued by the respondentCorporation however, with regard to prayer No.12(b) is concerned, she has submitted that amount of Rs.5,00,000/ (Rupees Five lacs) deposited by the petitioner is still lying with the respondents, and the same may be ordered to be refunded. She has submitted that the said amount is deposited in view of the provision of Clause 8.9(3) of Marketing and Disciplinary Guidelines (MDG) effective from 08.01.2013, which was amended on 03.08.2018. She has submitted that in view of the aforesaid provision, while preferring an appeal, the petitioner was required to deposit amount of Rs.5,00,000/ as non refundable fees, which was mandatory for filing an appeal, to be heard by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). She has submitted that prior to the provision of Clause 8.9(3), the unamended Clause 8.9 of the MDG did not require any mandatory deposit of Rs.5,00,000/, while filing the appeal. She has submitted that subsequently since the unamended provision, which was prevailing prior to 03.08.2018 has been restored, the respondents may be directed to refund the fees of Rs.5,00,000/ to the petitioner. 3.1 Learned advocate Ms.Malhotra has also contended that the petitioner had filed an appeal on 16.08.2016 under the provision of Clause 8.9 of the MDG against termination letter dated Page 2 of 10 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 21:59:10 IST 2022 C/SCA/22420/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/07/2022 15.07.2016. She has submitted that as per Clause 8.9 of the MDG, such an appeal was required to be heard preferably within a period of 90 days however, the same has been decided by the order dated 12.03.2019, after promulgation of the amended provision dated 03.08.2018. Thus, she has submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have already issued the communication
Circle 1(2)(2) S 16480, Stockholm, International Taxation Sweden New Delhi PAN : AAACE 9466 B ITA No. 1732/DEL/2018 [Assessment Year: 19992000] ITA No. 1733/DEL/2018 [Assessment Year: 200001] ITA No. 1734/DEL/2018 [Assessment Year: 200102] 2 ITA No. 1735/DEL/2018 [Assessment Year: 200203] ITA No. 1736/DEL/2018 [Assessment Year: 200304] ITA No. 1737/DEL/2018 [Assessment Year: 200405] Ericsson, AB Sweden Vs. The ACIT/DDIT C/o Price Water House Coopers Pvt Ltd Circle 1(2)(2), Tower C, 18th Floor, New Delhi DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon PAN : AAACE 9466 B [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 14.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.10.2021 Assessee by : Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. Adv Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv Revenue by : Shri Gangadhar Panda, CIT DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The above captioned appeals by the assessee and revenue are preferred against the very same order of the ld. CIT(A) 42, New Delhi dated 29.12.2017. Since common issues are involved in all the above 3 appeals pertaining to same assessee and were heard together, these are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal against that part of the order of the ld. CIT(A) which has been decided against it and the Revenue is in appeal in respect of the other part of the order of the ld. CIT(A) which has been decided against it. 3. The brief history of the captioned appeals are that in the first round of litigation, vide order dated 12.03.2004, the Assessing Officer in Assessment Year 19992000, has made the additions as under: S. Tax No. Income Goss income Net taxable rate Tax amount Head amount (Rs) amount (Rs) (Rs) 1. Sale of 1,003,309,774 7,22,88,469* 48% 3,46,98,465 hardware Supply of 253,263,779 253,263,779 10% 25,326,378 2. software Total 1,256,573,553 282,181,224 6,00,24,843 4. While making the additions, the relevant observations of the Assessing Officer read as under: 4 "As in preceding years (he claim of the assessee is that they had supplied the equipment at the port in Sweden and their income is not liable to tax in India as per provision of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and the Indo Swedish Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) vide Notification No. GSR 705(E). .This issue has been examined at length in the orders passed during earlier years for Assessment Year 199798, 199899 and 200001. In these orders my predecessors had held that the assessee company was liable to tax in India both under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the DTAA. It was held that the assessee had fixed place of business in India as well as it had dependent agents in India by virtue of which permanent establishment of the assessee was constituted in India within the meaning of Article 5 of the DTAA. The facts and circumstances of the case remain the same for this year as in preceding years. The nature of activities carried out arid the contracts under which such activities have been earned out remain the same. Hence, the supply of telecom hardware is therefore hel
1. The Union of India, Through Ministry of Small Scale Industries, Nirman Bhavan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi. 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Department of Industry, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 3. The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 4. Bajaj Auto Limited, Through its Chairman Head Office at Akurdi, Pune. 5. Managing Director, Bajaj Auto Limited, Akurdi, Pune. 6. VicePresident (Materials) Bajaj Auto Limited, Akurdi, Pune. ::: Uploaded on 08/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on 23/04/2020 04:35:12 ::: WP35082013+ 2 7. Sukarta Parishad, Through its Chairman, Divisional Commissioner Office, Delhi Gate, Aurangabad. ... Respondents ..... Mr. R. V. Sangle, Advocate i/by Mr. S. V. Dixit and Mr. Hitesh Sangle, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. S. B. Deshpande, ASG for Respondent No.1, Union Of India. Mr. R. V. Dasalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. S. P. Shah, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Mr. P. M. Shah, Senior Counsel i/by Mr. L. D. Vakil, Advocate for Respondent No.6. ..... WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6928 OF 2016 Bajaj Auto Limited, A company registered under The companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at Akrudi, Pune. Through its Authorised Officer Mr. M. M. Mundada Age : 57 years, Occu : Service, R/o. Waluj, Aurangabad. ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Directorate of Industries, Second Floor, New Administrative Bldg., Madam Cama Road, Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Joint Director of Industries for Development Commissioner (Industries) Second Floor, New Administrative Bldg., Madam Cama Road, Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai. ::: Uploaded on 08/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on 23/04/2020 04:35:12 ::: WP35082013+ 3 3. Ajanta Press Mechanical Works, Through its proprietor Shri P. V. Mankar, Plot No. B45, Waluj, Aurangabad. 4. The Chairman, Micro Small Enterprises Felicitation Council (Sukarta Parishad), Divisional Commissioner Office, Delhi Gate, Aurangabad. ... Respondents ..... Mr. P. M. Shah, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. L. D. Vakil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R. V. Dasalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Ranjeet Sangle, Advocate h/f Mr. S. V. Dixit, Advocate for Respondent No.3. ..... CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J. RESERVED ON : 20/08/2019 PRONOUNCED ON : 05/11/2019 JUDGMENT : 1. By filing Writ Petition No. 3508 of 2013, the petitioner, a small scale industry name and styled as "Ajanta Press and Mechanical Works" at Waluj MIDC Area, seeks quashing and setting aside the order dated 17.02.2019 passed by the Sukarta Parishad and also seeks direction against respondent nos. 4 to 6 to ::: Uploaded on 08/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on 23/04/2020 04:35:12 ::: WP35082013+ 4 pay compensation in terms and conditions of the purchase orders, particularly, 45 days money rotation and 10% profit allowed on labour charges basis.
Bombay High Court M/S Swastik Offset Printers Through ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 5 January, 2026 2026:BHCAUG:59DB 40WP2926.odt {1} BENCH AT AURANGABAD 40 WRIT PETITION NO. 29 OF 2026 M/s Swastik Offset Printers Through Proprietor VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others ...... Mr. Mahesh V. Ghatge, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. S.B. Narwade, AGP for RespondentsState ...... CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. DATE : 05 JANUARY, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The present petition has been filed challenging the communication dated 18.12.2025 issued by the Tender Inviting Authority, thereby rejecting the bid of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a sole proprietor duly registered under the Goods and Services Tax (2017) Act, and also registered under MSME with Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises. The respondent Collector has invited etender for supply of writing material and other stationery for the year 20242025 through Government Eprocurement portal. The petitioner has submitted his bid online within the prescribed time and all the necessary documents. However, his technical bid came to be rejected on the ground that certificate of the Auditor for the last three years was not uploaded along with bid as reflected in the 40WP2926.odt {2} technical evaluation sheet communicated subsequently by email. The petitioner had pointed out that the certificate is uploaded and informed that his turnover is not 60%. He tired to explain that it is 59.96%. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the said bid ought to have been considered by rounding it off, and that respondent No. 2 Collector ought not to have rejected the same by adopting a rigid approach. 3. Learned AGP waives service of notice for the respondents and submits that the petitioner was having knowledge of each and every term and since he is not fulfilling the said criteria, his bid has been rightly rejected. 4. The first and foremost fact i.e. required to be mentioned her that this Court has limited scope to consider the matter wherein the tenders are evaluated. When the tender document was floated, there was a specific condition at Sr. No.17 stating that last three years average financial transactions or turnover should be minimum 60% of the proposed tender amount and it should e certified by Chartered Accountant with UDIN number. Now, taking into consideration the evaluation sheet of the Committee who evaluated the tender documents of all the bidders, it appears that two bidders have been declared ineligible. 40WP2926.odt {3} 5. As regards the present petitioner is concerned, the aforesaid is the fact, and according to the petitioner itself, the said percentage comes to 59.96. If the petitioner does not fulfill the said criteria, the rejection is appropriate. It cannot be said to be a rigid approach of the Collector to reject the same. We do not find any merit in the present petition. Hence, the writ petition stands rejected. [ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE S P Rane
Delhi High Court Indian Highways Management Company ... vs Prakash Asphaltings And Toll Highways ... on 20 February, 2024 $~39 * Decided on: 20.02.2024 + O.M.P. (COMM) 392/2023, I.A. 18599/2023 & I.A. 22069/2023 INDIAN HIGHWAYS MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD. ....... Petitioner Through: Mr. A.P. Singh, Ms. Akshada Mujwar and Mr. Varnit Vashishtha, Advocates. versus PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS AND TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) PVT LTD ....... Respondent Through: Mr. Dharmendra Rautray, Ms. Ginny J. Rautray, Mr. Navdeep Singh, Ms. Devika Thakur and Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Advocates. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN JUDGMENT PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The challenge in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ["the A&C Act"], is to an Award dated 05.06.2023, rendered by the Madhya Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Bhopal [hereinafter, "the Facilitation Council"], under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ["the MSME Act"], against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent, adjudicating disputes between the parties under an Agreement dated 29.04.2015 ["Agreement"]. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL O.M.P. (COMM) 392/2023 Page 1 of 8 Signing Date:23.02.2024 18:45:55 2. The Agreement between the parties provides for provision of toll management services by the respondent to the petitioner. The term of the Agreement was stated to be five years, which was extendable by mutual agreement of the parties. 3. The principal contention of Mr. A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the impugned award is required to be set aside, as the respondent's claims did not fall within the ambit of jurisdiction of the Facilitation Council under Section 17 or 18 of the MSME Act at all. 4. Section 17 and 18 of the MSME Act read as follows: "17. Recovery of amount due.For any goods supplied or services rendered by the supplier, the buyer shall be liable to pay the amount with interest thereon as provided under Section 16. 18. Reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any party to a dispute may, with regard to any amount due under Section 17, make a reference to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. (2) On receipt of a reference under subsection (1), the Council shall either conduct mediation itself or refer the matter to any mediation service provider as provided under the Mediation Act, 2023. (3) The conduct of mediation under this section shall be as per the provisions of the Mediation Act, 2023. (4) Where the mediation initiated under subsection (3) is not successful and stands terminated without any settlement between the parties, the Council shall either itself take up the dispute for arbitration or refer it to any institution or centre providing alternative
Delhi High Court Orders Kalpataru Projects International ... vs Telecommunication Consultants India ... on 2 February, 2024 $~39 * + ARB.P. 146/2024 KALPATARU PROJECTS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ERSTWHILE JMC PROJECTS INDIA LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Nilava Bandyopadhyay, Ms. Divya Kashyap, Advs. versus TELECOMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Jayshree Dugar, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH ORDER % 02.02.2024 I.A. 2563/2024 Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions. The petitioner shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing. The application is disposed of. ARB.P. 146/2024 1. This is a petition under section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator. 2. The arbitration clause is contained in General Conditions of Contract being clause 63.3 which reads as under: " Arbiration 63.3 A. In the event of any dispute or difference arising between TCIL 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 08/02/2024 at 20:43:37 and the Contractor in any matter covered by this contract or arising directly or indirectly therefrom or connected or concerned with the said contract in any manner of the implementation of any terms and conditions of the said contract, the matter shall be referred to the Chairman & Managing Director, TCIL who may himself act as sole arbitrator or may name as sole arbitrator an officer of TCIL notwithstanding the fact that such officer lias been directly or indirectly associated. with this contract and the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act 1996. shall apply to such arbitration. The Contractor expressly agrees that the arbitration proceedings shall be held at New Delhi. B. In case any supplier wants to take the dispute to a court of law after arbitration, award as aforesaid, it is clearly understood that only courts in Delhi shall have the Jurisdiction. C. Arbitration: Contracts with PSU's and Government Departments In the event of any dispute or difference relating to the interpretation and application or the provisions of the contracts, such dispute or difference shall be referred by either party to the arbitration of
Delhi High Court Om Prakash Lakhina vs Uoi & Ors. on 21 January, 2025 $~88 * % Decided on: 21.01.2025 + W.P.(C) 2818/2006, CM APPL. 2544/2006 & CM APPL. 19356/2022 OM PRAKASH LAKHINA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sonal Kumar Singh and Mr. Yashvardhan Singh, Advocates. versus UOI & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parveen Kumar Mehdiratta and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocates for R2. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL) 1. By way of this writ petition, filed in the year 2006, the petitioner seeks relief against an order dated 11.11.2005, dismissing him from service. The order was passed by respondent No. 2 UTI Asset Management Company (P) Ltd. 2. The petition was filed on the premise that the respondent Company was "presently regulated by the four PSU entities LIC Of India, Bank Of Baroda, Punjab National Bank, State Bank Of India and is under the pervasive control" of Union of India ["UOI"]1. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, respondent No. 2 has filed additional affidavits dated 06.03.2024 and 05.08.2024, contesting Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL W.P.(C) 2818/2006 Page 1 of 5 Signing Date:23.01.2025 21:11:01 the maintainability of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in respect of a service dispute against it. It is stated therein that respondent No. 2 is professionally managed by its Board of Directors, and does not function under the financial or administrative control of UOI in any manner. Its shares are listed, and 30.75% are owned by the public. 4. Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 2, relies upon a judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Anil Kumar Anand v. Union of India and others1, and connected matters2, which has been upheld by the Division Bench in Anil Kumar Anand v. Union of India and Others3, which concern the very same respondent company. Copies of the said judgments have also been placed on record. 5. The judgment of the coordinate Bench deals with six writ petitions filed by an employee of respondent No. 2 herein. After tracing the factual developments with regard to disinvestment in the shares of respondent No. 2, the Court came to a conclusion that the writ petitions were not maintainable. The petitioner therein was granted liberty to take recourse to alternative remedies, and to seek exclusion of the period spent in pursuing the writ petitions for the purposes of limitation. 6. The petitioner therein approached the Division Bench against the aforesaid judgments, but his appeals were dismissed by judgment dated 09.04.2024. 7. Mr. Sonal Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, accepts that these judgments concern the very same employer against whom the present writ petition has been filed, however, he submits that the Court 1 Paragraph No. 2 of writ petition. 2 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8229. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL W.P.(C) 2818