abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
1 State of Maharashtra. Through Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai400032. 2 Anti Terrorist Squad, Mumbai. Through Additional Director General, Additional CP South Region Compound, Opp.Hume High School, Mumbai400008. 3 Union of India. Through Ministry of Home Affairs, South Block, New Delhi110001. 4 National Investigation Agency. Through Ministry of Home Affairs, 4th Floor, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Center, New Delhi110025. ..RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1325 OF 2012 Major Ramesh Upadhyay s/o Late Shivji Upadhyay, ::: Downloaded on 27/11/2013 20:25:27 ::: *2* wp.4049.1325.12.con.sxw Age : 60 years, Profession Retired Army Officer, Permanent Resident of Pune. Presently lodged at Taloja Central Prison, New Mumbai. ..PETITIONER Versus 1 Union of India. Through N.I.A., New Delhi. 2 Government of Maharashtra. Through A.T.S., Mumbai. ..RESPONDENTS ............. Mr.Mahesh Jethmalani, Senior Advocate a/w Ms.Gunjan Mangla i/by Mr.Ganesh Sovani, for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.4049/2012. Ms.Ameeta Kuttikrishnan, appointed Advocate for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1325/2012. Mr.D.J.Khambatta, Advocate General a/w Mrs.P.H.Kantharia and Mr.J.P.Yagnik, for the Respondent/State of Maharashtra. Mr.Kevic Setalwad, Additional Solicitor General of India, a/w Mahek Chheda, Mr.Som Sinha, Mr.Sumit Patni, i/by Mr.Dhiren Shah, for the Union of India. Mr.A.Mariarputham, Special P.P., a/w Ms.Rohini Salian, Special P.P., a/w Mr.Anand Sakhadeve, PP, for the NIA, Respondent No.4 in WP/4049/2012 and Respondent No.1 in WP/1325/2012. ............ CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & S.B.SHUKRE, JJ. Reserved on : 23rd August, 2013. Pronounced on : 11th October, 2013. Judgment (Per S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.): 1 These Writ Petitions raise the issue of constitutional validity ::: Downloaded on 27/11/2013 20:25:27 ::: *3* wp.4049.1325.12.con.sxw of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (Act 34 of 2008) (for short "NIA Act"). 2 Hence, RULE. The Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3 Since both Writ Petitions involve common questions, they are being decided by this common judgment. For properly appreciating the ar
Excise 1992 (61) ELT 3 (SC), was not obtained, the appeals were dismissed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") though with liberty to apply for restoration of the three appeals on production of necessary clearance from COD. Later on, the constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2011 (265) ELT 11 (SC) recalled its earlier direction issued from time to time in the matter of seeking clearance from COD, with the result that after the judgment of the Supreme Court in the said decision, it was no longer necessary for any aggrieved party to obtain COD before availing statutory remedy of appeal against the orders passed by the jurisdictional Commissioner in the matter of demand of excise duty, penalty, interest etc. The appellant herein filed three restoration applications in three appeals which were earlier dismissed by the Tribunal for want of COD clearance. By the impugned common order, the restoration applications in three different cases filed by 3 the appellant were rejected, giving rise to aforesaid three appeals. 3. While admitting the appeals, following substantial question of law for determination has been framed in each of the appeals:. "Whether in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble the
1. Gyanendra Kumar Singh S/o Late Kamla Prasad Singh resident of 23, Bailey Road, P.O. + P.S. Shashtri Nagar, District Patna 2. Rabindra Rai S/o Late Sone Lal Rai resident of Village + P.O. + P.S. Mahua, District Patna 3. Neeraj Kumar Singh S/o Ram Kishore Singh resident of 10, Birchand Patel Path, Patna, District Patna. 4. Rahul Kumar S/o Jagdish Sharma resident of 15, Hardinge Road, P.S. Secretariat, District Patna. 5. Shri Shravan Kumar son of Late Hari Prasad Singh Chief Whip of the ruling party, Bihar Legislative Assembly, presently residing at 12A, Bailey Road, P.O. GPO, PS Secretariat, District Patna .... .... Respondents With Letters Patent Appeal No. 128 of 2015 IN 1. Shri Shravan Kumar S/o Late Hari Prasad Singh Chief Whip of the Ruling Party, Bihar Legislative Assembly, presently residing at 12A, Bailey Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Secretariat, District Patna. .... .... Appellant Versus 1. Gyanendra Kumar Singh S/o Late Kamla Prasad Singh Resident of 23, Bailey Road, P.O. + P.S. Shashtri Nagar, District Patna. 2. Rabindra Rai S/o Late Sone Lal Rai Resident of Village + P.O. + P.S. Mahua, District Patna. 3. Neeraj Kumar Singh S/o Ram Kishore Singh Resident of 10, Birchand Patel Path, Patna, District Patna. 4. Rahul Kumar S/o Jagdish Sharma Resident of 15, Hardinge Road, P.S. Secretariat, District Patna. 5. The Bihar Legislative Assembly, Patna through the Secretary. .... .... Respondents Patna High Court LPA No.83 of 2015 dt.07042015 2/100 (In LPA No. 83 of 2015) For the Appellant : Mr. Y. V. Giri, Senior Advocate Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 4: Mr. Vinod Kumar Kanth, Senior Advocate Mr. S. B. K. Manglam, Advocate For Resp. No. 5 : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Senior Advocate Mr. Piyush Lal, Advocate (In LPA No. 128 of 2015) For the Appellant : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Senior Advocate Mr. Piyush Lal, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 4: Mr. Vinod Kumar Kanth, Senior Advocate Mr. S. B. K. Manglam, Advocate For Resp. No. 5 : Mr. Y. V. Giri, Senior Advocate Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH CAV JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI) Date: 07042015 Axiomatic! is it not that members, Bihar Legislative Assembly, come to this Court with a writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to get, inter alia, set aside and quashed the order, dated 01.11.2014, passed by the Speaker, Bihar Legislative Assembly, disqualifying them from being members of the Bihar Legislative Assembly and while filing the writ petition, Patna High Court LPA No.83 of 2015 dt.07042015 3/100 though the Speaker, Bihar Legislative Assembly, and Shri Shravan Kumar, Chief Whip of the Ruling Party, who was complainant and on whose complaint, the order, dated 01.11.2014, aforementioned
Madras High Court C.Padmambigai vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation W.P.Nos.34553, 34556, 34559 & 38746 of 2024 Reserved on Delivered on : 01.8.2025 06.8.2025 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH Writ Petition Nos.34553, 34556, 34559 & 38746 of 2024 & WMP.Nos.37463, 37465, 37471, 41954 & 41955 of 2024 C.Padmambigai, Proprietor of Dolphin Logistics, Chennai118. ...Petitioner in both WP.Nos. 34553 & 38746 of 2024 J.Kathiravan, Proprietor of Sri Garuda Logistics, Chennai11. ...Petitioner in WP.No.34556 of 2024 M.Chinnapaiyan, Proprietor of Sri Selva Lakshmi Transport, Chennai60. ...Petitioner in WP.No.34559 of 2024 Vs 1.Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., rep.by the Deputy General Manager Head MM, Cauvery Asset, Neravy Complex, Karikal 609604. 1/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 07:22:23 pm ) W.P.Nos.34553, 34556, 34559 & 38746 of 2024 2.Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., rep.by its Senior MMO, Cauvery Asset, Neravy Complex, Karikal 609604. ...Respondents in WP.Nos.34553, 34556 & 34559 of 2024 & R1 & R2 in WP.No. 38746 of 2024 3.M/s.Kamalakannan Road Transport, rep.by its Proprietor, Chennai102. 4.The Deputy Director, Office of the Development Commissioner, Micro, Small, Medium Enterprises Public Procurement Policy, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. 5.The Director, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department for Promotion of Industry & Internal Trade (Public Procurement Section), Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. ...R3 to R5 in WP.No.38746 of 2024 PETITIONS under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of (i) a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining the bid evaluation
SBI Global Factors Ltd. & anr. ....Respondents Mr. Haresh Jagtiani, Senior Advocate with Mr. V.N. Shingnapurkar, Mr. Harshad Shingnapurkar, Mr. Pushpvijay Kanoji, Mr. Pranay Kamdar, Mr. Ritwik Kulkarni and Mr. Dhananjay Nagarkar, for the Petitioner. Mr. Cherag Balsara with Mr. Ashish Mehta and Ms. Jovita Pareira i/b. Mr. Raj Kakde, for Respondent No.1. Mr. Mahesh Ayar, for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. JUDG. RESD. ON : 8 DECEMBER 2025. JUDG. PRON. ON : 23 DECEMBER 2025. JUDGMENT : 1) The Petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) seeking invalidation of the Arbitral Award dated 4 April 2024 passed by the learned sole Digitally Arbitrator. By the impugned Award, the Arbitral Tribunal has signed by NEETA NEETA SHAILESH SHAILESH SAWANT allowed the claims of Respondent No.1 in the sum of Rs. SAWANT Date: 2025.12.23 15:24:03 +0530 _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NO. 1 of 40 TUESDAY, 23 NOVEMBER 2025 ::: Uploaded on 23/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on 23/12/2025 21:00:46 ::: Neeta Sawant CARBP778 OF 2024 28,16,51,442.87/ in respect of domestic factoring facility alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 1 April 2011. The Arbitral Tribunal has further directed Petitioner and Respondent No.2 to jointly and severally pay to Respondent No.1 amount of Rs.15,29,35,047.19/ towards reverse factoring facility alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 1 April 2011. Petitioner and Respondent No.2 are further ordered and directed to specifically perform the obligations in sanction letter dated 21 June 2007. The Arbitral Tribunal has also awarded costs of arbitration in favour of Respondent No.1. FACTS 2) Petitioner was a Director and shareholder of Respondent No.2Company M/s. Rayalseema Commodities Ltd., which is currently under liquidation and which used to carry on business inter alia of export, purchase, sale, distribution, stocking, dealing with, and importing of flowers, agricultural products, rice, wheat, pulses, sugarcane, oil seeds, spices, alcohol, beverages, tea, coffee etc. The name of Respondent No.2Company was formerly Sudarshan Overseas Limited. By Certificate of Incorporation consequent upon change of name dated 4 March 2010, Respondent No.2 is now known as M/s. Rayalseema Commodities Limited (Rayalseema). 3) Respondent No.1 was formerly known as Global Trade Finance Ltd which is a subsidiary of State Bank of India. On 15 January 2010, Global Trade Finance Ltd amalgamated with SBI Factors and Commercial Services Private Limited, and the resultant Company is known as SBI Global Factors Ltd. They are collectively referred to as SBI Global. _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NO. 2 of 40 TUESDAY, 23 NOVEMBER 2025 ::: Uploaded on 23/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on 23/12/2025 21:00:46 ::: Neeta Sawant CARBP778 OF 2024 4) By letter of sanction dated 21 June 2007, SBI Global sanctioned to Rayalseema trade finance facilities upto the limit of Rs.15 crores subject to the condition of Petitioner alongwith Mr. Sudarshan Malhotra and Sunayana Malhotra, givin
Delhi High Court Villupuram Highways Construction Pvt ... vs National Highway Authority Of India on 29 July, 2025 $~ * % Date of Decision: 29th July, 2025 + ARB.P. 1829/2024 VILLUPURAM HIGHWAYS CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil K. Airi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Bindiya L. Airi, Mr. Ravi K. Chandna, Mr. Vishal Tyagi, Mr. Mudit Ruhella and Mr. Shayuk Kumar, Advocates. versus NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA.....Respondent Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar, Standing Counsel along with Mr. Kartik Gupta, Mr. Aditya Ramani, Mr. Devansh Malhotra, Ms. Nidhi Rani and Mr. Vaibhav Mishra, Advocates. + ARB.P. 2090/2024 SURYAPET KHAMMAM ROAD PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arvind Nayar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nilava Bandyopadhyay, Mr. Rahul Pandey and Ms. Zeel Gondaliya, Advocates. versus NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA.....Respondent Through: Mr. Manish K. Bishnoi and Mr. Khubaib Shakeel, Advocates. + ARB.P. 423/2025 and I.A. 7558/2025 and 10248/2025 PANAGARH PALSIT ROAD PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arvind Nayar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nilava Bandyopadhyay, Mr. Rahul Pandey and Ms. Zeel Gondaliya, Advocates. versus Signature Not Verified ARB.P. 1829/2024 and connected matters Page 1 of 31 Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:30.07.2025 19:33:40 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA.....Respondent Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar, Standing Counsel along with Mr. Kartik Gupta, Mr. Aditya Ramani, Mr. Devansh Malhotra, Ms. Nidhi Rani and Mr. Vaibhav Mishra, Advocates. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH JUDGEMENT JYOTI SINGH, J. 1. These petitions are filed by the Petitioners under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('1996 Act') for appointment of Arbitrators to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. On account of similitude of questions of law involved in the three petitions, they were heard together with the consent of the parties and are being decided by this common judgment. ARB.P. 1829/2024 2. Petitioner and Respondent/National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) entered into a Concession Agreement ('CA') on 23.04.2018 for 'Four Laning of Villupuram Puducherry Section of NH45A (New NH332) from Km 0.000 to Km. 29.000 (Design Chainage) under Bharatmala Pariyojana PhaseI (Residual NHDP PhaseIV works) on HAM' in the State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Puducherry. 3. Petitioner avers that it performed all its obligations as required under Article 4.1.2 of CA within the stipulated period but NHAI failed to satisfy the conditions precedent under the Agreement and illegally issued letter
STATE OF GUJARAT Appearance: MOSON LE EXPARTS(11071) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. SUDHIR NANAVATY, SR. ADVOCATE with MR AKSHAT KHARE(5912) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 1,4 MR. UTKARSH SHARMA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR. R.S. SANJANWALA, SR. ADVOCATE with RUSHABH H SHAH(7594) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 Date : 01/09/2020 CAV JUDGMENT [1.0.] Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Gandhinagar, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as "MSEFC") whereby, it terminated the conciliation proceedings conducted Page 1 of 38 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 23:34:24 IST 2020 C/SCA/7858/2020 CAV JUDGMENT under Section 18(2) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "MSME Act") and directed the parties to start the arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) of the MSME Act before the MSEFC. [2.0.] The respondent No.3 M/s Rachna Infrastructure Ltd. filed reference under Section 18(1) of the MSME Act before the MSEFC claiming that there exists dispute with regard to delayed payment and interest thereon, against respondent No.4 M/s. Fernas Construction India Pvt Limited and petitioner M/s. ONGC Petro additions Limited. After putting in tireless efforts by the MSEFC since it did not yield any outcome, MSEFC terminated conciliation proceedings and directed the parties to start the arbitration before it. [3.0.] The petitioner M/s ONGC Petro additions Limited (hereinafter referred to as "OPaL") is a Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and is a joint venture company promoted by M/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and copromoted by M/s GAIL (India) Limited and M/s Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Petrochemicals and other allied products. [4.0.] The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the petition are as under: [4.1.] The petitioner has set up a grass root mega Petrochemicals project of national importance for manufacturing petrochemical products and other allied products at Dahej, Gujarat Page 2 of 38 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 23:34:24 IST 2020 C/SCA/7858/2020 CAV JUDGMENT in PCPIR/SEZ with an investment of USD 4.5 billion, one of its kind in Indian Subcontinent to provide wide spectrum of petrochemicals, wherein several interdependent units were designed viz. Dual Feed Cracker Unit (DFCU), LLDPE/HDPE Swing Unit (PE Unit), dedicated HDPE Unit, Polypropylene Unit (PP Unit), Pyrolysis Gas Hydrogenation Unit, Benzene Extraction Unit, Butadiene Extraction Unit and others for manufacturing variety of petrochemical and allied products. The primary infrastructure set up by OPaL at its aforesaid Petrochemical Complex is as follows: (a) DFCU Unit cracks its feedstock and produces several chemicals namely (i) Ethylene, (ii) Propylene, (iii) Butadiene, (iv) Benzene, (v) Pyrolysis Gasoline an (vi) Carbon Black Feed Stock (CBFS), etc., which are feedstocks for other downstream units i.e. Ethylene is the feed stock for PE & dedicated HDPE Units, Propylene is the feed stock for PP Unit and oth
Delhi High Court Orders 3R Technologies vs U.O.I. And Anr on 28 January, 2019 $~54 * CM No.4020/2019 & Rev.P.No.31/2019 in + W.P.(C) 963/2018 3R TECHNOLOGIES ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Akhilesh Singh, Adv. versus U.O.I. AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Ms. Saakshi Aggarwal and Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Advs. for R1. Mr. Tarveen Singh Nanda and Mr. Rahul Singhal, Advs. for R2. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN ORDER % 28.01.2019 Rev.P.No.31/2019 This review petition has been preferred by the petitioner, against the impugned order dated 29.11.2018, primarily on the ground that the letter dated 10.12.2017 of the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, had required the DIPP to change or modify its policy. The Court had rejected the petitioner's complaint that the MSME Act and policies framed under it, were not followed by the respondents. The Court had relied upon a previous judgment which had influenced the policy makers in this case to frame the tender conditions in the manner that they did. Furthermore, the Court had considered the record which disclosed that the contract tendered for, was a composite one, of which the equipments supplied was not substantial. What the review petitioner had sought was an effective direction that the tender should splitup the procurement of services and goods. Such direction cannot be given in the course of writ proceedings. The Court therefore, discerns no error apparent on the face of the record or sufficient cause to review the impugned order. The review petition is therefore, dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J PRATEEK JALAN, J JANUARY 28, 2019 aj
AND SB Basant Bhidasra & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Dhana Ram Saini & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Mukesh Yadav & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Ramkishan Sharma & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Sohan Lal Bunkar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Sarita & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Kapil Jaiman & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Anita Sharma & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Shomana Jain versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Mainpal Swami & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Vikram Kumar Saini & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Sanju Kumari & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Ramesh Meena & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Dharmendra Singh versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Ram Swaroop Yadav versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Kuldeep Sharma & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Rajesh Kumar Meena & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Ravindra Kumar Rajoriya & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Chandra Prakash Sharma & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Mahesh Chand Jat & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Sangeeta Jain versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Dinesh Kumar Meena & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Dilawar Singh & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Suresh Kumar versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Vikash Kumar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Shankar Lal & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Avinash Agrawal & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Sharvan Kumar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Mukesh Kumar Joya & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Kishore Kumar Sharma & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Anita Sharma & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Rekha Bai & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Prerna Joshi & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Vijay Lata & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Anita Kumari & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Vishnu Kumar Saini & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Sunita Beniwal & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Dinesh Kumar Gurjar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Rameen Bairwa & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Parveen versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Sumar Kumari & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Hans Ram Singh & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Vishnu Kumar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Dinesh Kumar Verma & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Jitendra Bhatra & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Sumit Kumar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Santosh Kumar Meena & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND S.B.Satveer Singh & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors AND