abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
M/s.China Datang Technologies and Engineering Company Limited. Incorporatd under the laws of People's Republic of China Registered Office at 4th and 6th Floor, No.120, Zizhuyuan Road, Haidian District Building – 100097, People's Republic of China. ... Respondent Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an Arbitral Tribunal owing to failure of the respondent to agree for the same Arbitral Tribunal and/or failure to appoint an Arbitrator as required under the procedure stipulated in LOA dated 31.08.2019 and contract dated 06.03.2020. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Nithyanandam For Respondent : Mr.Ravi Varma Ms.Jayshree Dugar Ms.Varshini 1/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.OP.(Com.Div.).No.222 of 2023 ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer the parties to the Arbitration for the second time. 2. Already a reference was made subsequent to order dated 12.10.2010 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in OA.No.493 of 2020 by the respondent. In the said proceedings, the petitioner had filed memorandum dated 12.10.2020, pursuant to which Hon'ble Mrs.Justice R.Banumathi (retd) Former Judge of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was appointed as the sole Arbitrator. This arrangement of an arbitral arising of one arbitrator was in dilution of the Arbitration Clause 10.33.3.5 of the General conditions of the contract. 3. The Arbitrator has also since passed an Award on 09.11.2022, in the Arbitral proceedings. The petitioner had there reserved a right to agitate the issue relating to loss arising out of awarding of the contract to a 3rd party. In paragraph 87 of the Counter filed before the Arbitral Tribunal in defense statement, the petitioner has stated as under : 2/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.OP.(Com.Div.).No.222 of 2023 "87. Apart from the above undisputed facts and due to the gross negligence and nonperformance of the contract, the Respondent had suffered innumerably. The claims arising out of risk and cost would be known to the Respondent after materializing new domestic tender floated for the said works. As a result, the Respondent with the leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal reserves its right to raise the said claims arises out of risk and costs as when occurs and quantified the same. The cause of action for the same is yet to arise. As such, the Respondent is entitled to reserve the right for the present.”
1.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office, Intellectual Property Building, G.S.T.Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 032, India. ... Respondent 1 2.M/s.Haryana Pesticide Manufactures Association (HPMA) 1307, 13th floor, Vikram Towers, Rajendra Place, New Delhi 110 008, India. ... Respondent 2 3.Mr.Chimanbhai Chauhan ... Respondent 3 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:03 pm ) C.M.A.(PT) No.21 of 2024 Prayer : Appeal filed under Section 117(A)(2) of Patent's Act, 1970 to set aside the order of the first respondent dated 05th March, 2024. For Appellant : Mr.Adarsh Ramanujan representing M/s.Khurana & Khurana Mr.Tarun Khurana Mr.Tapan Shah Mr.P.Subburaj For R1 : Mr.A.R.Sakthivel SPCGSC For R2 : Mr.Shravan Kumar Bansal Mr.Somnath De For R3 : Mr.Bhavik Patel assisted by Dr.Heena Patel JUDGMENT The appellant filed Application No. 4135/CHEN/2014 titled “Stable Herbicidal Composition comprising Pendimethalin and Metribuzin” at the Indian Patent Office (IPO) , Chennai, on 25th August 2014. A request for examination was filed on 27th September 2017. Pursuant thereto, the First Examination Report (FER) was issued by the IPO on 22nd July 2019. In the 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:03 pm ) C.M.A.(PT) No.21 of 2024 FER, the first respondent raised objections, inter alia, on the grounds that claims 1 to 6, as originally filed, lacked novelty and inventive step in view of three cited documents, namely: • D1: AU760278B2 ; • D2: AU2012203353B2 ; and • D3: O.B HILDEBRAND: Proceedings of the Ninth Australian Weeds Conference, Adelaide, South Australia, August 6–10, 1990. Objections were also raised on the ground of nonpatentability under Section 3(d) and Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970 (“the Patents Act”). The appellant replied to the FER on 21st January 2020 along with a copy of the
1. M/s. Shiv Shakti Steel Industries Plot No. 576, Khasra No. 957, Sultanpuri Road, Furniture Market, Kirari, Delhi 110086. 2. Dinesh Mittal Plot No. 576, Khasra No. 957, Sultanpuri Road, Furniture Market, Kirari, Delhi 110086. ...Defendants Date of Institution : 25082023 Date of hearing of arguments : 08012025 Date of decision : 16012025 CS (COMM.) No. 635/23 M/s. Nikunj Woods Pvt Ltd Vs M/s. Shiv Shakti Steel Industries & Anr Page No.1 of 24 Ld. Counsel for plaintiff Sh Anirudh Gupta Ld Counsel for Defendants Sh Prateek Goyal JUDGMENT 1. The case of the plaintiff is that it is a Company duly incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Plot No. 1, KH No. 35/23, Nilothi Village, Near Bharat Singh Farm, Nangloi, New Delhi 110043, which is engaged in the business of supplying of particle & MDF Board and manufacturing of furnitures. It is further claimed that plaintiff company is being run and managed by Girish Agarwal & Manish Agarwal, its two Directors and the present suit is filed through one of its Director Girish Agarwal, who is authorized vide Board Resolution dated 04.03.2022 to act, plead, sign and verify plaints, written statement, petitions and other pleading and also execute vakalatnama and other authorities on its behalf. 2. It is further averred that defendant no. 2 Dinesh Mittal being proprietor of defendant no. 1, had placed orders with the plaintiff, from time to time, which were supplied to the defendants within stipulated time, according to their requirements and specifications and in turn plaintiff raised bills qua the same, which were duly received by the defendants. As per the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had also supplied various articles to the defendants vide six different invoices qua which payments were not made by the defendants and details thereof are mentioned in the tabulated form CS (COMM.) No. 635/23 M/s. Nikunj Woods Pvt Ltd Vs M/s. Shiv Shakti Steel Industries & Anr Page No.2 of 24 below: Sr. No. Date Invoice No. Amount 1 05042019 4 79,048/ 2 18042019 15 99,715/ 3 20042019 21 94,966/ 4 22042019 25 2,85,666/ 5 22042019 26 3,56,124/ 6 23042019 30 4,16,717/ Total 13,32,236/ 3. It is further case of the plaintiff that a running ledger of account was being maintained by it qua all the transaction as per normal course of its business procedure and as per the said ledger, a sum of Rs. 13,32,236/ was due and outstanding against the defendants as on 07052019. It is also claimed by the plaintiff that it had also deposited GST with respect to the aforesaid six invoices raised by it (upon the defendants). 4. It is further claimed that despite receiving the material from the plaintiff, the defendants did not pay the outstanding amount within 15 days from the dates of invoices and thus are liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the total outstanding amount from 07.05.2019 till realization. It is further averred that despite several followups, telephonically and through emails, the defendants did not pay the outstanding amount and since the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding amou
1. Neha Arora Narula Sole Proprietor of M/s NV Multistore C37, Pandav Nagar, Near Radha Krishna Mandir Delhi 110092. 2. Varun Arora C37, Pandav Nagar, Near Radha Krishna Mandir Delhi 110092. .............Defendant Date of institution : 23.09.2023 Date of reserving judgment : 28.03.2025 Date of judgment : 15.04.2025 JUDGMENT: 1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit filed by the plaintiff against defendants for seeking recovery of Rs.46,07,212/ along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% Per Annum. The brief facts necessitated in filing of the present suit are given as under: Digitally signed by Pitamber Pitamber Dutt Date: Dutt 2025.04.15 16:37:44 +0530 CS (Comm) No. 365/23 M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore Page No. 1 of 23 2. The plaintiff has averred that she is the proprietor of "M/s Saanjh Create Your World", dealing with manufacturing and fabrication of ladies garments. Defendants no. 1 and 2, were also into the business of sale and purchase of readymade ladies garments and running their business in the name and style of M/s N.V. Multistore. They approached the plaintiff and showed their willingness to buy garments in large quantity from her. The plaintiff agreed to their proposal and manufactured goods as per their choice and requirement and supplied to them, on account basis after raising invoices. 3. The plaintiff has further averred that defendants made part payments, through UPI and made last payment in December 2021, after which they did not make any payment. As per the statement of account, a sum of Rs.46,07,212/ was due and outstanding against the defendants, which they failed to pay despite various requests and service of legal notice dated 24.12.2022. 4. The plaintiff has further averred that she filed an application under Section 12 A of the Commercial Courts Act before the District Legal Service Authority, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi for seeking preinstitution mediation, where defendants though joined the proceedings but failed to make payment despite two consecutive meetings, as such the matter was returned being found not fit for mediation vide order dated 18.05.2023. On the basis of the above averments, the present suit has been filed for adjudication. Digitally signed by Pitamber Pitamber Dutt Date: Dutt 2025.04.15 16:37:52 +0530 CS (Comm) No. 365/23 M/s Saanjh Create Your World Vs M/s N.V. Multistore Page No. 2 of 23 5. Pursuant to the summon, defendants no. 1 and 2 appeared and filed their written statement, taking preliminary objections that plaintiff has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts; That suit has been filed in contravention of the provisions of Order VI Rule 15A of CPC; That suit suffers from misjoinder of parties as defendant no. 2 is not a necessary party; That the suit has not been valued properly for the purpose of Court Fee; That no cause of action for filing the present suit has arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against the defend
Accused : M/s.Fronter Modular Designs Pvt.Ltd. No.24, Manjunatha Industrial Estate, Herohalli Magadi Main Road, Bengaluru 560 091 2. Sri. Bengaluru Sridhar Prashanth, Director of Frontier Modular Designs Pvt. Ltd. No.2, 12th Cross, 7th Main, Hanumagiri Nagar Chikkalsandra, Bengaluru 560 061 3.Smt. Nerelemane Muddappa Shobha Director of Frontier Modular Designs Pvt. Ltd. No.2, 12th Cross, 7th Main, Hanumagiri Nagar Chikkalsandra, 3 C.C. No.20264 / 2020 Bengaluru 560 061 { By Sri. A N Somegowda Advocate } Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act., Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. Final Order : Accused is acquitted . Date of Order : 09.02.2026 4 C.C. No.20264 / 2020 JUDGMENT The present complaint is filed under section 200 of code of criminal procedure against the accused seeking to punish him for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short referred as "N.I. Act"). 02. The factual backgrounds of the complaint are as under. It is alleged that, the complainant is doing the business of supply and execution of soundproofing, noise related projects. Accused No.1 is the private limited company, accused No.2 and 3 are the Directors of accused No.1 company, and accused No.4 is the General Manager and accused No.5 is the authorized representative of the accused No.1 who have placed order and have been in touch with the complainant. Accused No.2 and 3 are the incharge and responsible for the day to day affairs of accused No.1 company. Accused No.1 company has placed an order with the complainant for the supply of Sound 5 C.C. No.20264 / 2020 observing boards. Accordingly, the complainant delivered the sound observing boards as per instructions and has raised certain invoices. To discharge the liability and bills of the same accused No.1 has issued cheque No. 040372 dated 08.03.2019 for Rs. 2,37,323/ drawn on Axis Bank, Jayanagar, 7th Block Branch, Bengaluru. It is further stated that, along with the material supplied, there was also another invoice for the transportation and 3 rd party testing fee, vide invoice No.166 dated 20.02.2019, comprising of Rs.38,940/ towards the charges of transportation and Rs.25,000/ towards 3rd party testing fees, totaling an amount of Rs. 3,01,263/ is pending from the accused. These transactions have happened as per the orders and instructions through mail and SMS. It is further stated that, at the time of issuing the aforesaid cheque the accused has assured the complainant that, the aforesaid cheque and pending amount would be honoured on its presentation date and the other amounts such as transportation and testing amount shall be given the movement the material is delivered. On such 6 C.C. No.20264 / 2020 assurance given by accused No.1 to 5 the complainant has delivered the material and had accepted the aforesaid cheque for the discharge of their liability. As per the instructions of the accused, the complai
in the area of managing the product lifecycle and management of industrial operations. It has sold 15 million licenses and has a clientbase of 1,40,000 customers worldwide. Plaintiff No. 1 company offers wide software ranges like "concurrent simultaneous user", "node locked or Floating" and "Named User" having mandatory licence for all its products and has spent huge amount of money in developing, promoting and advertising its products all over the world. Plaintiff No. 2 being duly incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956, is a subsidiary of the plaintiff No. 1 and is duly authorized by plaintiff no. 1 to license its software in India. 3. It has been averred that the plaintiff No.1 is the exclusive and rightful owner of the intellectual property in its software/products and of all confidential or proprietary, commercial, financial, marketing and/or other technical or business information or trade secrets which are used and/or accessed by assessed by any customer through the licensed softwares. Plaintiff No. 1 provides digital product development software, featuring applications like NX (formewrly known as Unigraphics) software with various versions. NX software is an integrated product design, engineering and manufacturing solution that helps its' customer to deliver better products faster and more efficiently and has various versions. NX Nastran is another premium computeraided engineering (CAE) software which is unlicenced by the plaintiffs and is relied upon by major manufacturers worldwide. 4. It is further averred that defendants are engaged in the designing and manufacturing of services for Jigs, Fixtures, Gauges, Press Tools, Dies & SPM as well as designing and automation solution for which they require plaintiff No.1's software program NX Software. Plaintiff from reliable sources got to know that the defendants have been infringing the copyrights of plaintiff No. 1 by proving services to its clients using unlicensed aforesaid software program namely NX various versions, thereby infringing the copyrights of the plaintiff No. 1. As per information, defendants are in possession of infringing materials. Consequently, plaintiff no. 1 engaged Mr. Vincent Jose, who is a professional investigator, to enquire into the matter who reported that the defendants have a dedicated Siemens Product Lifecyc
Delhi High Court Morgan Securities And Credits Pvt. Ltd vs Ganesh Benzoplast Limited on 28 June, 2023 $~ * % Pronounced on: 28.06.2023 + FAO (OS) (COMM) 17/2021 & CM APPL. 3583/2021 (stay) MORGAN SECURITIES AND CREDITS PVT. LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Puri, Ms. Surbhi Gupta and Mr. Sahil Grewal, Advocates. versus GANESH BENZOPLAST LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Arun Kumar Varma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kuljeet Rawat, Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Iti Sharma, Mr. Akshay, Mr. Aditya Joshi and Mr.Puneet Sharma, Advocates. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN JUDGMENT NAJMI WAZIRI, J. 1. The present appeal under section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ( 'the Act') read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2013 seeks to set aside the impugned interim order dated 21.01.2021 passed this section 9 petition by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR FAO(OS) (COMM) 17/2021 Page 1 of 23 Signing Date:28.06.2023 16:17:53 learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in OMP (I) (COMM) No. 363 of 2020. 2. The reliefs sought by the appellant were as under: ―A. Restraining the Respondent Company from acting in furtherance to the Resolutions passed in the Board meeting dtd. 07.10.2020 and the special resolutions passed by way of Postal ballot on 06.1 1.2020, with respect to the preferential allotment of shares of Respondent Company pursuant to proposed Share Sale and purchase Agreement (SSPA) with Stolt Rail Logistic Systems Limited, in any manner, whatsoever; directly or indirectly. B. Direct the Respondent Company to make a Full and complete Disclosure of the terms of the proposed Share Sale and purchase Agreement (SSPA) with Stolt Rail Logistic Systems Limited by the Respondent Company to the Claimant, by way of Affidavit. C. Pass any other orders that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts of the present case; D. Pass exparte; adinterim orders, in terms of Prayer A above.‖ 3. Section 9 of the Act reads as under: Section 9: Interim measures, etc., by Court. [(1)] A party may, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with section 36, apply to a court (i) for the appointment of a guardian for a minor or person
1. The Chief Area Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Shahi Bhawan First Exhibition Road, Patna 800022. 2. The Deputy Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Patna. 3. Subodh Kumar Singh S/o Late Mahendra Pd. Singh Resident of Village Ahpura, P.O. and P.S. Sandesh District Bhojpur. ... ... Respondent/s For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ankit Katriar, Adv. : Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, Adv. : Mr. Hemant Kumar Karn, Adv. : Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, (Sr. Adv.) and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 6 03072025 Appellant has assailed the order of learned Single Judge dated 19.02.2020 passed in CWJC No. 16461 of 2016. Appellant and respondent no. 3 Subodh Kumar Singh were candidates for allotment of LPG distributorship pursuant to the advertisement notified on 28.06.2013. Last date of submission of application is being 31.07.2013 and the fact that both the appellant and respondent no. 3 have submitted their application before 31.07.2013 and it is not in dispute. Core issue involved in Patna High Court L.P.A No.417 of 2022(6) dt.03072025 2/3 the present lis is whether granting permission to the respondent no. 3 Subodh Kumar Singh to offer alternative land is in terms of the policy decision of the O.I.C. or not. Perusal of policy of the O.I.C. titled as PSU Oil Marketing Companie's Manual for selection of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) April, 2013 which is invoked for the purpose of giving effect to the advertisement dated 28.06.2013. Respondent no. 3 Subodh Kumar Singh had offered initially on 30 July, 2013 a land which was not feasible for the purpose of considering his name for allotment of LPG Distributorship. However, candidates can offer alternative land and it should have been registered on or before last date of submission of application in the light of para 14.3 of the aforementioned manual. It reads as under : "During the FVC process, in case the land mentioned by the applicant for godown in his application is not suitable and if the applicant is having any alternate land (in the advertised RGGLV location) in his name as per Family Unit norms or land belonging to his parents & grandparents (both maternal & paternal) of the applicant with date of registration on or before the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any), the same can be considered. However, the same if considered has to be duly verified for its suitability during the FVC." 2. In terms of para 14.3, official respondents have given effect to para 14.3 and permitted respondent no. 3 Patna High Court L.P.A No.417 of 2022(6) dt.03072025
Madras High Court P.P.Thomas vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 July, 2022 C.S.No.190 of 2012 Judgment reserved on 26.04.2022 Judgment pronounced on 13.07.2022 CORAM The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY Civil Suit No.190 of 2012 and Application Nos.6042, 9635 and 9636 of 2018 P.P.Thomas, Government Contractor, Palannattil House, Kunnackal P.O., Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam District, Kerala682 316. ... Plaintiff vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By the Secretary to the Government PWD, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai600 009. 2. Superintending Engineer, PWD, Periyar Dam Special Circle, Madurai625 002 Presently, at PWD, Water Resources Organization Periyar Vaigai Basin Circle Near Central Market, Madurai625 001. ... Defendants Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the O.S Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. 1908, praying to pass judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff seeking (A) for a declaration that the Defendants committed breach of contract under Agreement No.8/SE/PDC/198889 and prevented performance and completion of the work within the period stipulated in the agreement, which expired on 21.06.1992 and that the rejection of the claims for payment of the unpaid value of the works carried out and other https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/80 C.S.No.190 of 2012 amounts due to him notified on 11.07.1993 by the First Defendant on 05.06.1996 and 03.07.1996 is illegal, unjustified & invalid and consequently, the First Defendant is liable for payment at the market rates prevailed for the works delayed beyond 21.06.1990, by disgorging the unjust enrichment obtained by nonpayment of the same, to compensate the losses caused to the Plaintiff, to restore his position ante; (B) for a declaration that the penalty of Rs.80,000/ (Rupees Eight Thousand only) imposed on the Plaintiff alleging slow progress is illegal, unjustified & invalid and consequently, the First Defendant is liable to compensate the loss by refund of the amount illegally recovered along with interest thereon at 18% p.a. from the date of suit till realization; (C)directing the First Defendant to pay Rs.2,60,75,350/ (Rupees Two Crore Sixty Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty only), towards unpaid cost of Rs.39,900 cum of broken stones obtained by blasting of hard rock in the Reserved Forest in the Kerala State on obtaining permission for the same on 23.12.1989, in liew of the buffer stock of blasted stones in the dump yard near the Vents of the Additional Regulator of the Periyar Dam, which was washed off in the flood as notified at Rs.64,22,500/ including interest thereon at 18% p.a. till date of payment by disgorging the unjust enrichment obtained by the Defendants; (D) directing the First Defendant to pay Rs.4,31,04,780/ (Rupees Four Crores Thirty One lakhs Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty only), towards unpaid market value of works carried out between 21.07.1990 and 23.05.1994 notified a Rs.1,06,16,941/ including interest thereon at 18% p.a. From 23.05.1994 onwards till 23.09.2011 and payable with interest at the