abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
contains purely legal findings and no personal or domestic details. However, the teasers and trailers of the film misappropriates the judgment's moral legacy to weave a fictional narrative that distorts the personalities and private lives of the individuals involved. The experiences of late Shah Bano Begum are not part of any public record and were never meant to be dramatized or commercialized for entertainment. The sole objective of the respondents is to commercialize her personal life. The script and dialogues of the movie are fabricated and are not drawn from any legitimate or judicial source. The revival of late Shah Bano's suffering has caused the petitioner grave emotional trauma. The petitioner has approached this Court to prevent the desecration of a sacred memory and has hence preferred this petition. Signature Not Ve
1. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission, Through its Authorized Representative, 1st Floor, Neptune Tower, Opp. Nehru Brodge, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad 380009 2. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Through its Authorized Representative, Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan, Race Course, Vadodara 390007 3. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited, Through its Authorized Representative, Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan Race Course, Vadodara 390007 ... Respondent(s) Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Kapur Mr. Abhishek Munot Mr. Melcolm Desai Mr. D.L. Chidanada Ms. Apoorva Misra, Adv. 1|Page Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Ms. Suparna Shrivastava Mr. M.G. Ramachandran Ms. Ranjitha Ramachandran Mr. Anand K. Ganesan Ms. Anushree Bardhan Mr. S.K. pandey for GERC/R1 Ms. Anushka Arora for R1 Mr. Ishan Mukherjee Ms. Venu for GETCO Ms. Swapna Srivastava Ms. Nishtha Sikroria Ms. Poorva Saigal Appeal No. 85 of 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: 1. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhawan Race Course, Vadodara 390007 2. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhawan Race Course, Vadodara390007 .... Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission 1st Floor, Neptune Tower Opp. Nehru Brodge, Ashram Road Ahmedabad380009 ....Respondent(s) 2. Essar Power Limited Essar House 11, Keshavrao Marg Mahalaxmi, Mumbai400034 ....Respondent(s)/Petitioner(s) Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Mr. M.G. Ramachandran Mr. Anand K. Ganesan Ms. Ranjitha Ramachandran Mr. Anand K. Ganesan Ms. Anushree Bardhan for GUVNL 2|Page Ms. Poorva Saigal Mr. Shubham Arya for R2 Mr. Ishan Mukherjee Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kapur Ms. Suparna Srivastava for R1 Mr. S.K. Pandey for GERC/R1 Mr. Abhishek Munot Mr. Malcolm Desai for R2 Ms. Anuska Arora Mr. S.K. Pandey (Rep) Ms. Apoorva Misra, Adv. JUDGMENT Per Hon'ble Mr. T. Munikrishnaiah, Technical Member Appeal No. 273 of 2014 1. The Appellant Essar Power Gujarat Ltd. (EPGL) has filed this Appeal under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, against the order dated 08.08.2013 passed in Petition No. 1257 of 2012 filed by the Appellant. After hearing the parties at length, the State Commission passed an Impugned Order dated 08.08.2013 directing as under: "18. In view of the above analysis, we come to the conclusion that the Petitioner is liable to pay Liquidated
Delhi High Court Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited vs M/S Ess Ess Technofabs Private Limited on 7 February, 2026 $~J * Judgment reserved on: 03.11.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 07.02.2026 + ARB.P. 1723/2024 DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LIMITED ...Petitioner Through: Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr. PrathaVir Agarwal & Ms. Shubhi Agarwal, Advs. versus M/S ESS ESS TECHNOFABS PRIVATE LIMITED ...Respondent Through: Mr. Varun Bedi & Ms. Swati Ahalwat, Advs. + ARB.P. 1725/2024 DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LIMITED ...Petitioner Through: Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr. PrathaVir Agarwal & Ms. Shubhi Agarwal, Advs. versus M/S ESS ESS TECHNOFABS PRIVATE LIMITED ...Respondent Through: Mr. Varun Bedi & Ms. Swati Ahalwat, Advs. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH JUDGMENT 1. These are petitions filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ("the Act") arising out of the work Digitally Signed By:MAYANK ARB.P. 1723/2024 & ARB. P. 1725/2024 Page 1 of 20 Signing Date:07.02.2026 14:48:06 order/purchase order dated 11.10.2020 and 04.11.2020, respectively, seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties. FACTUAL MATRIX AS PER THE PETITIONER 2. The petitioner, namely Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Limited is a public company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of cement and other allied products. 3. The respondent, namely M/S Ess Ess Technofabs Private Limited is engaged in the business of Manufacturing and installation of fabricated metal products. 4. In the year 2020, the petitioner engaged the respondent for providing material and services for mechanical fabrication and erection job of two projects, namely AFR feeding system and clinker silo at its DDSPL unit based in Rohtas, Bihar ("Project 1") and the installation of cooler at Rajgangpur unit, Odisha ("Project 2") respectively. 5. As regards with the project 1, the letter of indent was issued on 15.09.2020 and subsequently the petitioner issued a work order/purchase order dated 11.10.2020. 6. As regards with the project 2, the Letter of Indent was issued on 30.10.2020 and subsequently the petitioner issued a work order/purchase order dated 04.11.2020. 7. The aforesaid said work order/purchase order contained an arbitration clause being Clause No. 28 of the general terms and conditions of the work order/purchase order. 8. The nature of purported disputes in both these petitions are similar, hence are being dealt, together. It is the case of the petitioner that the Digitally Signed By:MAYANK ARB.P. 1723/2024 & ARB. P. 1725/2024 Page 2 of 20 Signing Date:07.02.2026 14:48:06 respondent failed to execute the work within the time schedule and the petitioner had to engage the third party contractors for completion of the projects. 9. Subsequently, t
USHA GOEL & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Counsel (appearance not given) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN VIBHU BAKHRU, J. 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1976 (hereafter 'the A&C Act') impugning a judgment dated 09.06.2022 (hereafter 'the impugned judgment') whereby the appellant's application under Section 34 of the A&C Act was rejected. 2. The appellant is essentially aggrieved by an Arbitral Award dated 14.03.2020 (hereafter 'the impugned award') whereby the Arbitral Tribunal had awarded an amount of ₹22,87,317/ in favour of respondent no.1 (claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal) along with Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:21.04.2023 FAO(COMM) 81/2023 Page 1 of 5 2023:DHC:2693DB interest, at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of award till the date of the payment. 3. Respondent no. 1 (proprietor of V.D. Industries) claimed that she is engaged in the business of manufacturing PVC compound granules since 1996 and is registered under the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereafter 'the MSMED Act'). She claimed that during the period December 2017 to June 2018, she had supplied goods to M/s Govind Cable Industries (hereafter 'the Firm'), of an aggregate value of ₹26,77,420/. The said amount remained outstanding and the Firm and its partners had failed and neglected to pay the said amount. The disputes between the parties were, referred by the MSME Council under Section 18 of the MSMED Act for arbitration under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). 4. The Arbitral Tribunal had examined the aforesaid claims and passed the impugned award. 5. It is the appellant's case that she was not an active partner of the Firm till 20.04.2018 and therefore was not liable for the amounts due by the said firm to respondent no.1. 6. Admittedly, the appellant was inducted as a partner of the Firm in terms of the Partnership Deed executed on 24.08.2017. Accordingly, the Arbitral Tribunal rejected the appellant's contention that she was liable for the amounts due and payable by the Firm only in respect of transaction entered into after 20.04.2018. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:21.04.2023 FAO(COMM) 81/2023 Page 2 of 5 2023:DHC:2693DB 7. The relevant extract of the impugned award rejecting the appellant's contention and the reasons for the same are set out below: "10.3 As already noticed earlier, the partnership deed Ex RWl/A, was executed bet
Marketing Federation Ltd. (1998) 5 SCC 69 interpreting the word „trial‟ in the context of Section 10 of CPC and holding that bar therein "to proceed with the trial of any suit" comes into operation after leave to defend is granted. It was reasoned, that the word „trial‟ is of wide import and in its widest sense would include the proceedings right from institution of suit to the final determination by a judgment or decree; however, whether widest meaning is to be given or it should be construed narrowly, has to depend CS(COMM) 565/2018 Page 2 of 3 upon the nature and object of the provision and the context in which it is used . Attention is also invited to Rule 1 of Part F of Chapter I of Part C titled "Instructions to Civil Courts in Delhi" of High Court Rules and Orders, prescribing that trial of a suit falls in two broad divisions the first leading upto and including framing of issues and the second, consisting of hearing of evidence produced by parties on those issues and decision thereof. However, in my opinion the said instructions would have no application to suits on the original side of this Court. 11. Rule 3 of Order XVA titled "Time limit for completion of trial" provides that in fixing dates and setting time limits for the purpose of Rule 2, the Court shall ensure that arguments are closed not later than six months from the date of the first Case Management Hearing. The same indicates that, at least for the purpose of Order XVA of the CPC, trial would include this stage as well. 12. The counsel for the defendant of course controverts but is unable to. However, on enquiry as to how much time the defendant will take to address arguments, refuses to commit. 13. The application is disposed of, binding the plaintiff to the afo
Delhi High Court Ms Khukhrain Builders & Ors. vs Indian Bank & Ors. on 18 September, 2024 $~117 * % Date of decision: 18th September, 2024 + W.P.(C) 13094/2024 & CM APPL. 54729/2024 MS KHUKHRAIN BUILDERS & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Saurabh Kripal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashutosh Thakur, Adv. versus INDIAN BANK & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Seema Gupta, Adv. for Respondent No.1/Indian Bank. Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with Mr. Vasuchit Anand/GP and Ms. Priya Singh and Mr. Nipun Jain, Advs. for R5 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA DHARMESH SHARMA, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 54730/2024 (EXMP) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 54731/2024 3. This application has been moved on behalf of the petitioners seeking permission to file lengthy list of dates and synopsis. 4. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. Signature Not Verified WP (C) 13094/2024 Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 1 of 7 KUMAR VATS Signing Date:23.09.2024 18:10:30 5. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 13094/2024 & CM APPL. 54729/2024 6. The petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm, which along with its partners, who are arraigned as petitioners No. 2 to 4, hereinafter referred to as the petitioners, invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 for directions to the respondents not to curtail the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2/Indian Bank as well as learned counsel for respondent No.5 are present on advance notice. 8. It is the case of the petitioners that it is registered as an MSME1. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioners availed a loan facility from the respondent No.2/Indian Bank but was unable to make repayment of the said loan amount, consequent to which, proceedings have been initiated by the Secured Creditor i.e. the respondent No.1/Indian bank under SARFAESI Act2 so as to seek possession of the property mortgaged with the latter. 9. It is claimed by the petitioners that they challenged the action initiated by the respondents No.1 and 2/ Indian Bank before the DRT3 II, Delhi, which application was withdrawn on 25.07.2024 with liberty to file afresh as and when need arises, based upon assurance by the 1 Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises 2 The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 3 Debt Recovery Tribunal Signature Not Verified WP (C) 13094/2024 Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 2 of 7 KUMAR VATS Signing Date:23.09.2024 18:10:30 respondent no.1/Indian Bank that they will release the property documents for sale for which the petitioners have arranged a buyer. 10. Mr. Saurabh Kripal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has heavily relied upon decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Pro Knits v. Board of Directors of Canara Bank4, wherein the Supreme Court explained the very object and purpose of the MSMED
First Newsmedia Private Ltd. ....Respondent. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Yes. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vivek Singh Atti, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Suri and Mr. Ajay Shandil, Advocates. Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Through Arbitration Case No. 58 of 2019, cast under the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, readwith Section 19 of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, the apposite aggrieved objectors/petitioners, cast an onslaught, vis­a­vis, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ::: Downloaded on 02/12/2019 20:26:17 :::HCHP ...2... the validity of the award made by the learned Arbitrator, . upon, Reference No. 52/2017. 2. The operative portion of the impugned award, is, adverbatim, hence, reproduced hereinafter. Moreover, given the award becoming pronounced on 9.1.2019, and, the petition thereagainst becoming instituted herebefore, on 10.4.2019, does render the extant petition, to, become instituted herebefore rather within the apposite prescribed period, of, limitation. " The claim of the petitioner is admitted and an award for a sum of Rs.16,01,522/­ (principal) & interest on this amount u/s 16 of MSMED Act 2006 up to Rs. 17,74,462/­. Total Rs.3375984/­ (Rs. Thirty three lakhs seventy five thousand, nine hundred and eight four only) due up to the date of filing the reference is passed against the buyers and in favour of the claimant to be paid within 30 days from the date of this award. The buyers shall also be liable to pay to the petitioner interest from the date of filing the present reference i.e 4.1.2018 up to the date of passing the award and future interest from the date of passing the award till the payment is made, as per interest rate fixed u/s 16 ::: Downloaded on 02/12/2019 20:26:17 :::HCHP ...3... of the MSMED, 2006. The petitioner is further . entitled to get reimbursed arbitrator's fee of Rs. 40,000/­ from the buyer. The petitioner in addition to that shall also be entitled to get the litigation expenses and other miscellaneous expenses such as counsels fee, postal & stationary charges clerical expenses, traveling expenses etc. to the extent of Rs.60,000/­, against the buyer. This will form part of the award. The petitioner shall be entitled to recover the amount from HPCC through its office bearers. No award is passed against the INC or its office bearers as they were not the party in the reference sent to this tribunal and this tribunal can't travel beyond the reference. However there is no bar to recover the amount awarded in execution from its constituent i.e INC through its office bearers as per provisions of law. The award is duly prepared, printed and signed in three originals and one original each will be sent to the applicant and respondents and the third original award on stamp papers alongwith the record received by the undersigned and the proceedings file be sent to the chairman, HP Micro
Allahabad High Court Ashok Kumar vs Union Of India And 2 Others on 28 January, 2020 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. 1 Case : WRIT C No. 2849 of 2020 Petitioner : Ashok Kumar Respondent : Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner : Vidya Kant Shukla Counsel for Respondent : A.S.G.I.,Vikas Budhwar Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Sri Kuldeep Kumar Singh, Advocate has filed his power on behalf of respondent no.1, which is taken on record. Heard Sri Vidya Kant Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kuldeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 and perused the record. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought for direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to ensure retesting of sample in compliance of order dated 25.5.2019 passed by Dispute Resolution Panel from State Laboratory or else the petitioner. Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of Court towards earlier order dated 18.9.2019 passed by this Court in WritC No.28726 of 2019 which was disposed of directing the Dispute Resolution Panel to decide the matter expeditiously within a period of three months and the petitioner who was a dealer had made a prayer for retesting of MS/HSD Samples drawn on 10.9.2016 in compliance of the order of this Court passed in the aforesaid writ petition by an independent laboratory. It is stated that the said prayer of the petitioner is no feasible and he has drawn our attention towards Clause 2.5 (E) of Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2012 which is reproduced hereunder: "E) In case of sample failure and in the event of request from dealer for testing his retained sample, his sample along with the counter sample retained with the OMC are to be tested at any PSU laboratory of his choice in the same/nearby State or FTLNOIDA as per guidelines and in the presence of field officer and RO dealer after due verification of the samples. The decision of the competent authority which would be based on the test results of all the 3 samples would be decisive and binding on all. The expenditure incurred for testing of retention samples to be borne by the dealer." In pursuance of which the petitioner was given an option by the respondent no.3 on 5.12.2019 and 26.12.2019 respectively along with list of laboratory in Uttar Pradesh was also given from where retesting can be done but petitioner had not opted for the above and has come up to only delay the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the sample is of the date 10.9.2016, hence he has come up before this Court with the aforesaid prayer but he could not dispute the contention of learned counsel for the respondents regarding guidelines 2012 referred above. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter in exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed. (Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date : 28.1.2020 Gaurav
Orissa High Court The Deputy General Manager vs M/S. Maa Bhairabi Traders on 14 February, 2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: ARCUM SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18Feb2025 17:31:36 ARBA No.3 of 2023 Along with ARBA No.37 of 2022, ARBA No.4 of 2023, ARBA No.5 of 2023 (IN ARBA No.3 of 2023) (From the Judgment dated 12.1.2023 passed by the Learned District Judge, Ganjam in Arbitration Petition No.1 of 2021 arising out of award dated 18.7.2018 passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council in MSEFC Case No. 33 of 2017) The Deputy General Manager, .... Appellant (s) (Elect.), Electrical Circle, Berhampur, versus M/s. Maa Bhairabi Traders, .... Respondent (s) Lochapada Road, PO. Berhampur, Dist.Ganjam &Anr. Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: Appellant (s) : Mr. Anindya Kumar Mishra, Adv. Respondent (s) : Mr. Rajeet Roy, Adv. Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Adv. Mr. R.K. Mahanta, Adv. (IN ARBA No.37 of 2022) (From the order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the Learned District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in Arbitration Petition No.1 of 2021 arising out of award dated 18.07.2018 passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council in MSEFC Case No. 33 of 2017) Page 1 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: ARCUM SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18Feb2025 17:31:36 Superintending Engineer (TPSODL, .... Appellant (s) Electrical Circle, Bidyutpuri Colony, Berhampur versus M/s. Maa Bhairabi Traders, .... Respondent (s) Lachapada Road, PO. Berhampur, Dist.Ganjam & Anr. Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: Appellant (s) : Mr.Suresh Chandra Dash, Adv. Respondent (s) : M/s. G.M. Rath, Adv. Mr. S.S. Padhy, Adv. (IN ARBA No.4 of 2023) (From the Judgment dated 12.1.2023 passed by the Learned District Judge, Ganjam in FAO No.20 of 2022 arising out of award dated 19.01.2019 passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council in MSEFC Case No.35 of 2017) Chief Operating Officer, SOUTHCO .... Appellant (s) Utility, Corporate Office,Berhampur versus Director of Industries, Cuttack, .... Respondent (s) Odisha & Ors. Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: Appellant (s) : Mr. Anindya Kumar Mishra, Adv. Respondent (s) : Mr. Rajeet Roy, Adv. Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Adv. Mr. R.K. Mahanta, Adv. Page 2 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: ARCUM SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18Feb2025 17:31:36 (IN ARBA No.
Delhi High Court Orders Indraprastha Gas Limited vs Directorate General Defence Estates & ... on 13 February, 2024 $~30 * + W.P.(C) 6999/2021 INDRAPRASTHA GAS LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Aashish Dutta, Advocate for Mr. Abhimanyu Garg, Advocate. versus DIRECTORATE GENERAL DEFENCE ESTATES & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: None. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD ORDER % 13.02.2024 1. It is stated by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that since the Petitioner is a Public Section Undertaking (PSU), an attempt is being made to resolve the dispute amicably with the Union of India. 2. List on 17.05.2024. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J FEBRUARY 13, 2024 S. Zakir 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 14/02/2024 at 22:37:27