abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
(Writ Petition No.29970 of 2019 and WMP Nos 29872 & 34971 of 2019), wherein, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, observed that "NCLT has no jurisdiction to go into the matters governed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2001 (PMLA) and, therefore, Section 14, having consequent upon an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority declaring moratorium, would not apply to the PMLA which is a distinct 3 and special statute having its own objective and as such Section 14 would not bar a proceeding under the Act." For the sake of brevity, para 8, 9 and 10 of the said judgement is reproduced hereinbelow: Para 8. Section 14 of the IBC speaks of moratorium. A declaration has to be made through an order by the Adjudicatory Authority in this regard. If one carefully goes through the said section, there is no way professional attachment order passed under the provisions of the PMLA would automatically invite a moratorium. This provision only speaks about the consequence for institution of the suit, for continuance and other proceedings against the Corporate Debtor. Therefore, Section 14 of the IBC is consequent upon an order passed by the Adjudicative Authority declaring moratorium. This would not apply to a special enactment which travels on its own path. After all, one cannot presume a conflict between two enactments having it distinct roles with their objections. As stated, it only speaks about the follow up action over a property, which is subject matter of the proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal under the IBC. Thus, Section 14 would not bar a proceeding under the PMLA. Para 9. Section 32A of the IBC deals with the liability for prior offences. This provision would get attracted in a case where the resolution plan has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of the IBC. Therefore, when no such http://www.judis.nic.in 4 W.P.No.29970 of 2019 & WMP Nos.29872 & 34971 of 2019 approval has taken place, the Adjudicating Authority will not have any power or authority to exercise the power under Section 32A of the IBC. We may note, this insertion by way of an amendment came into being with effect from 28.12.2019 onwards. Para 10. Section 60 o
Associates1, has inter alia held that provisions of Limitation Act will apply to proceedings or appeals before NCLT/NCLAT. Section 238A of the Code make provisions of Limitation Act would apply to proceedings under the Code. As stated supra, debt in question fell on various dates on and after October, 2011 and there is no explanation for the laches and delay on the part of the petitioner. Moreover, as per the terms and conditions as stipulated in the Master License Agreement in question, the debt in question itself is subject to various compliances as stated supra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in a recent case, in Mobilox Innovations Private Limited Vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited2, has categorically laid down that IBC is not intended to be substitute to a recovery forum. It is also laid down whenever there is existence of real dispute, the IBC provisions cannot be invoked. In another latest judgement rendered in Transmission Corpn. Of A.P. Vs. Equipment Conductors and Cables Ltd.3, it has inter alia held that existence of undisputed debt is sine qua non of initiating CIRP. As per para 34 of judgement, it is stated that Adjudicating Authority, while examining an application under Section 9 of Code, will have to determine: i. Whether there is an 'operational debt' as defined exceeding Rs. 1 Lakh? ii. Whether documentary evidence furnished with the application shows that the aforesaid debt is due and payable and has not yet been paid? iii. Whether there is existence of dispute between the parties or the record of the pendency of a suit or arbitration proceeding filed before receipt of demand notice of the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 98 of 2019 3 unpaid operational debt in relation to such dispute? If any one of the aforesaid conditions is lacking, the application would have to be rejected. "14. In view of the above facts and circumstances of case, we are of the considered view that debt in question is not only in serious dispute, but it is also barred by laches and limitation, and the petitioner, in fact seeking recovery of alleged debt under the provisions of code. We have gone through the citations given by the learned Counse
Delhi High Court M/S Techno Compact Builders Through Mr. ... vs Railtel Corporation Of India Limited on 22 March, 2024 $~ * RESERVED ON 27.02.2024 % PRONOUNCED ON 22.03.2024 + ARB.P. 1230/2023, I.A. 23296/2023 M/S TECHNO COMPACT BUILDERS THROUGH MR. ZULFIQUAR ALI, SOLE PROPRIETOR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Susmit Pushkar, Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Ms.Naina Agarwal and Mr.Rab Hussain, Advts. versus RAILTEL CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh, Ms.Anjali Kumari and Ms.Harshita Singh, Advts. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA JUDGMENT DINESH KUMAR SHARMA,J : 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act). 2. In brief the facts are that the petitioner has sought an appointment of a ARB.P. 1230/2023 Page 1 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PALLAVI VERMA Signing Date:22.03.2024 15:20:40 Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the inter se disputes arising out of clause 4.6 of letter of Acceptance (LOA) No.RailTel/ Tender/OT /ER/HQ/20152016 /898/392 dated 20.06.2016. SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONER 3. The petitioner submits that the disputes arose between the parties in relation to the works performed and payments to be made under the contract. The notice invoking arbitration dated 13.03.2023 was duly served. The petitioner submitted that the respondent vide email dated 27.03.2023 and 01.04.2023 did not object to the fact that a dispute has arisen between the parties which is covered under Clause 4.64 of the Contract and is in principle agreeable for the appointment of a tribunal to arbitrate the disputes. It has been submitted that however, the parties have failed to appoint the arbitrator in terms of the Contract and in compliance of the amended terms of the Act as the respondent has insisted that a sole arbitrator will be appointed by CMD/RailTel out of the panel of arbitrators of the respondent. The petitioner submitted that the CMD/respondent has an interest in the dispute or in the outcome or decision thereof, and therefore is not only ineligible to act as an arbitrator, but is also ineligible to act as the appointing authority. 4. The respondent in its counter affidavit submitted that the RailTel Corporation of India Ltd. has its own broad panel list of arbitrators due to the technical requirement/aspect of the dispute involved in PSU/RailTel. The respondent submitted that the petitioner has not followed the required procedure mentioned in the Arbitral Clause in the Contract Agreement. Along with the affidavit, the list of the arbitrators ARB.P. 1230/2023 Page 2 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PALLAVI VERMA Signing Date:22.03.2024 15:20:40 prepared by the RailTel was also filed. The respondent relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh V. D
any other relief and the amount forfeited by the respondent in the form of Bank Guarantee (PBG) as genuine preestimate being reasonable compensation is sufficient for the respondent. Brief facts: 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner manufactures all kinds of paints for the Railways, Defence, Para Military Forces etc. The respondent had invited tender for supply of 54000 ltrs of paints. The petitioner submitted its bid, which the respondent accepted. An order dated 19.01.2015 was placed on the petitioner for supply of the aforesaid quantity at Rs. 199.36 per ltre aggregating to Rs. 1,07,65,440/. The supply order had an advance sample clause under Part II, Clause 6 as per which, the petitioner was required to submit advance samples for test & approval by 17.03.2015 and performance bank guarantee of an amount of Rs. 10,76,544.00. Delivery period was nine months or earlier from the effective date of approval of the advance samples by CQA (M), Kanpur. It was stipulated that in case, the advance samples are not submitted by the due date or they fail in the test, the contract will be cancelled at the risk & cost of the supplier. 3. On 11.03.2015, the petitioner submitted the advance samples in required quantity to the respondent, which the respondent received on 16.03.2015. The samples on testing were not found confirming to the specifications and were OMP (Comm) No. 209/2019 Pushkar Paint Industries Vs. UOI Page No.2 of 37 rejected. The petitioner wrote letters from 05.08.2015 to 16.11.2015 (10 letters) to the respondent challenging the rejection, requesting to resend the advance samples for joint testing and permitting it to manufacture bulk supply at its own risk & cost with improvements sought but the respondent vide letters dated 18.08.2015 & 26.08.2015 did not agree to its request / offer. It vide letter dated 13.11.2015 also refused to entertain the petitioner's request for advance cum bulk production on the ground of delay but stated that the request for submission of advance samples for retesting is under consideration. It vide letter dated 24.11.2015 set up 15.01.2016 as the last date for submitting the fresh samples with a condition that 45 days period would be reduced from the total period in the final bulk supply. The petitioner submitted fresh samples for testing on 11.01.2016 but the samples again failed in the tests conducted in the respondent's lab, which the respondent intimated to the petitioner vide letter dated 24.05.2016 stating that request to issue bulk production clearance cannot be entertained. It vide letter dated 01.08.2016 wrote to the petitioner that the petitioner has committed breach of contract as its samples repeatedly failed in tests; it failed to supply the stores within the stipulated time and it cancelled the supply order. It also invoked the bank guarantee. 4. The petitioner aggrieved by the cancellation of supply order and invocation of bank guarantee sent a notice of request OMP (Comm) No. 209/2019 Pushkar Paint Industries Vs. UOI Page No.3 of 37 for arbitration vide letter date
Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Respondent No. 1, Foulk's Compound, Anaimedu, Salem 626 001. AND (i) Service Tax Appeal No. 164/2011 (CGST & CE, Salem) (Arising out of Order in Original No. 06/2010 (Commissioner) dated 13.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem) (ii) Service Tax Appeal No. 40524/2014 (CGST & CE, Salem) (Arising out of Order in Original No. 11/2013 dated 20.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem) (iii) Service Tax Appeal No.40525/2014 (CGST & CE, Salem) (Arising out of Order in Original No. 14/2013 dated 22.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem) 2 (iv) Service Tax Appeal No.42545/2014 (CGST & CE, Salem) (Arising out of Order in Original No. 11/2014 dated 20.6.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem) Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Appellant No. 1, Foulk's Compound, Anaimedu, Salem 626 001. Vs. M/s. RPP Infra Projects Ltd. Respondent (formerly RPP Constructions Pvt. Ltd.) S.F. No. 454, Raghupathynaiken Palayam Poondurai Road, Railway Colony, Erode, Salem 600 032. APPEARANCE: Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate for the AppellantAssessee Shri P.R.V. Ramanan, Special Counsel & Shri M. Ambe, DC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Hon'ble Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order Nos. 4056440575/2024 Date of Hearing : 05.03.2024 Date of Decision: 30.05.2024 Per M. Ajit Kumar, These appeals filed by the Rival Parties involve common issues and hence they were heard together and are disposed by this common order. M/s. RPP Infra Projects Ltd., (RPP) are providers of taxable service and are registered with the Department for providing service under the categories of: (i) Commercial or Industrial Construction Service (CICS) (ii) Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service (ECIS) (iii) Interior Decorator Service, and (iv) Construction of Residential Complex Service There are 8 appeals filed by the assessee i.e. M/s RPP and 4 departmental appeals being disposed off through this common order. The demands have been raised under 9 categories of services against which both RPP and the department are in appeal before this Tribunal. Since a large number of individual projects are involved in all the appeals put together, its proposed to group the projects service wise for ease of discussion and decision on the legal issues involved. 3 2. The index of issues discussed is given in th
1. Union of India. ] nd Having office at 2 floor, Aayakar Bhavan, ] M. K. Road, Mumbai 400 020. ] 2. Central Warehousing Corporation. ] (A Government of India Undertaking) ] Regional Office, Mumbai, Sector20, ] Near APMC Fruit Market, Vashi, ] Navi Mumbai 400 613. ] 3. Regional Manager. ] Central Warehousing Corporation, ] Vashi Godowns, Navi Mumbai 400 613. ] 4. M/s. Parsewar & Company. ] A Partnership firm having its office at ] Vitthai, New Mondha, Nanded. ] 5. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs. ] Having its office at Krishi Bhavan, ] New Delhi 110 011. ] 6. The Central Vigilance Commission. ] Satarkata Bhavan, ABlock, GPO Complex, ] INA, New Delhi 110 023. ] ... Respondents URS 1 of 24 ::: Uploaded on 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on 19/04/2019 04:10:47 ::: 2 WP 1101118 @ WP 1127818 Judgment.odt ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11278 OF 2018 Nagnath Gangadharrao Paldewar. ] Government Handling & Transport Contractor, ] A Sole Proprietorship, through its Proprietor ] Mr. Nagnath Gangadharrao Paldewar, ] Having its office at Plot No.111/112, Vasant ] Nagar, Airport Road, Nanded 431 602. ] ... Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India. ] nd Having office at 2 floor, Aayakar Bhavan, ] M. K. Road, Mumbai 400 020. ] 2. Central Warehousing Corporation. ] (A Government of India Undertaking) ] Regional Office, Mumbai, Sector20, ] Near APMC Fruit Market, Vashi, ] Navi Mumbai 400 613. ] 3. Regional Manager. ] Central Warehousing Corporation, ] Vashi Godowns, Navi Mumbai 400 613. ] 4. M/s. Parsewar & Company. ] A Partnership firm having its office at ] Vitthai, New Mondha, Nanded. ] 5. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs. ] Having its office at Krishi Bhavan, ] New Delhi 110 011. ] 6. The Central Vigilance Commission. ] Satarkata Bhavan, ABlock, GPO Complex, ] INA, New Delhi 110 023. ] ... Respondents URS 2 of 24 ::: Uploaded on 18/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on 19/04/2019 04:10:47 ::: 3 WP 1101118 @ WP 1127818 Judgment.odt Mr. Prasad Dani, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Pankaj Kode i/b Mr. Himanshu Kode for Petitioner in Writ Petition No.11011 of 2018. Mr. Sanjiv Sawant a/w Ms. Juilee Ghadge i/b Mr. Himanshu Kode for Petitioner in Writ Petition No.11278 of 2018. Mr. Dharmesh Joshi for Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.11011 of 2018. Ms. Uma KshirsagarWagle a/w Ms. S. I. Shah for Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.11278 of 2018. Mr. R. K. Sharma a/w Mr. Darshan Adke i/b Sharma Syndicate Lex Co. for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 in both Writ Petitions. Mr. Kishor Patil a/w Mr. Sameer Mhatre i/b Mr. Ajay Patil for Respondent No.4 in both Writ Petitions. CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. RESERVED ON : 08 APRIL, 2019 PRONOUNCED ON : 18 APRIL, 2019 JUDGMENT (PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) : 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. Both these Petitions are filed by different Petitioners seeking similar relief against the same Re
Chattisgarh High Court Chhattisgarh Text Book Corporation vs M/S Chhattisgarh Packagers Pvt Ltd on 21 August, 2025 1/3 SMT NIRMALA RAO HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 756 of 2025 CHHATTISGARH TEXT BOOK CORPORATION versus M/S CHHATTISGARH PACKAGERS PVT LTD WP227/514/2025 Order Sheet 21/08/2025 Shri Anand Shukla and Shri Arijit Tiwari, Advocates for the respective petitioners. Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate for the respondents. Shri Shukla, Advocate in WP(227) No.514 of 2025 would submit that the learned Executing CourtcumThird District Judge, Raipur in Execution Case No.179 of 2017 dated 24.3.2025, directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs,.96,73,195/ by misinterpreting the award passed by the Facilitation Council. 2/3 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the Facilitation Council has clarified that the interest component would be calculated in accordance with the provisions of Sections 16 & 17 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006 (for short 'MSME Act') and that the same calculation was presented before the learned Executing Court, which was accepted. Heard. A perusal of the award would show that the Facilitation Council in the concluding paragraph, assessed the total amount of award at Rs.11,93,000/ and accordingly imposed the interest component according to the provisions of Sections 16 & 17 of the MSME Act. The final assessed amount of the award was Rs.34,07,841/, which was payable within a period of 30 days, failing which the amount shall carry interest till the date of its realization. However, the Facilitation Council did not clarified the interest rate in the concluding paragraph. Considering the submissions made by respective Advocates and the award passed by the Arbitrator, a strong case is made out for grant of stay. Therefore, the effect and operation of the order dated 24.3.2025 shall be stayed till the next date of hearing. Shri Arjit Tiwari, Advocate in WP(227) No.756 of 2025 would submit that the learned Executing Court has frozen the bank account of the petitioner, making it very difficult for the petitioner to make payment of salary or meet 3/3 expenses of the Corporation in such circumstances. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the order has been passed according to the provisions of Section 16 of the MSME Act. Considering the fact that the Facilitation Council did not clarify the interest rate in the concluding paragraph of the award, and that the calculation and the order passed on 24.3.2025 have already been stayed, therefore, the effect and operation of the order dated 11.6.2025 is hereby stayed. Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file reply. Call both the matters on 7.10.2025 for final disposal at motion stage. SD/ (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi
Madras High Court M/S.Vee Kay Logistics vs The Micro And Small Enterprises on 27 February, 2025 2025:MHC:915 WA No. 284 of 2025 DATED: 27022025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR WA No. 284 of 2025 AND CMP NO. 2215 OF 2025 M/s.VEE KAY LOGISTICS Rep. by its Partner, Mr.Mathew.J, New No.24/3, Sri Vinayaga Sarang Garden Street, George Town, Chennai 600 001. Appellant(s) Vs 1. The Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council Chennai Region, A30, Thiru Vi. Ka. Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. 2.M/s. Eco Care Pest Control Services New No.62, 4th North Beach Road, Chennai 600 001 Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 02:58:14 pm ) WA No. 284 of 2025 PRAYER To set aside the impugned order dated 05012024 in WP.No.36067/2023. For Appellant(s): Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar For M/s.G.Derrick Sam For Respondent(s): MR.T.Chandra Sekaran SGP For R1 Mr.Mohanaselvan For Mr.E.Shankar For R2 JUDGMENT (Judgement was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Under assail is the order dated 05.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.36067 of 2023. The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court. 2. The writ of certiorari has been instituted to quash the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council (MSEFC), Chennai Region. 3. The brief facts to be considered in the present IntraCourt Appeal are that the 2nd respondent had made a claim in Case No.MSEFC/CR/232/2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 02:58:14 pm ) WA No. 284 of 2025 before the MSEF Council under Section 18(1) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 [hereinafter referred to as 'MSMED Act'] claiming payment of Rs.15,49,234/ from the writ appellant towards the remaining amount due for services rendered, along with interest calculated in terms of that Act. By an order dated 23.03.2023, the Council held that the appellant was liable to pay the principal amount of Rs.15,49,234/ with compounded interest, with monthly rate at three times of the Bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), as stipulated in Sections 15 and 16 of the MSMED Act. The interest was payable from the due dates of appointment until payment. 4. Three key issues arise for consideration in the present lis on hand, as under; (1) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable, when an efficacious alternate remedy is contemplated under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for setting aside the award passed under the Arbitration Act? https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 02:58:14 pm
Delhi High Court Designco vs Union Of India & Ors. on 22 November, 2024 * % Judgment reserved on: 14 August 2024 Judgment pronounced on: 22 November 2024 + W.P.(C) 14477/2022 & CM APPL. 44224/2022 (Stay) DESIGNCO .....Petitioner Through: Mr. P. C. Patnaik, Mr. Hemant Mishra & Ms. Ankita Sarangi Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Sunil and Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, GP for UOI. Mr. Jitesh Vikram Srivastava, SPC with Mr. Prajesh Vikram Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Raghav Bakshi, Adv. for Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC for R2, R4 & R5. + W.P.(C) 17314/2022 & CM APPL. 55055/2022 (Interim Relief) M /S AMIT EXPORTS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarun Gulati, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Madhav Bhatia, Mr. Shreshth Arya, Mr. Shreuss Shankar Joshi and Mr. Rohan Anand, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Sunil and Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, GP for UOI. Mr. Satish Aggarwala, SSC along with Mr. Aman Tripathi, Ms. Neha Aggarwala Ms. Pooja Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 14477/2022 & Connected Matters Page 1 of 91 By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:22.11.2024 18:13:24 Bhaskar, Advs. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Mishra and Mr. Apoorva Singh, Advs. for R11. + W.P.(C) 17328/2022 & CM APPL. 55093/2022 (Interim Relief) M/S SHARMA INTERNATIONAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarun Gulati, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Madhav Bhatia, Mr. Shreshth Arya, Mr. Shreuss Shankar Joshi and Mr. Rohan Anand, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Sunil and Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, GP for UOI. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Mishra and