abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
PunjabHaryana High Court Punjab State Power Corp.Ltd vs M/S Punjab Transformers & Electronics ... on 29 June, 2015 FAO No.517 of 2014 (O&M) 1 AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.517 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.06.2015 PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED +.. Appellant versus M/S PUNJAB TRANSFORMERS & ELECTRONICS LTD. AND ANOTHER ++Respondents FAO No.518 of 2014 (O&M) PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED +.. Appellant versus M/S SARAF ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD & ANR ++Respondents FAO No.521 of 2014 (O&M) PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED +.. Appellant versus M/S PUNJAB TRANSFORMERS AND ELECTRONICS LTD.& ANR. ++Respondents FAO No.522 of 2014 (O&M) PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED +.. Appellant versus M/S SANGRUR INDUSTRIAL CORP. LTD. AND ANR. GOPAL KRISHAN ++Respondents 2015.06.30 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No.517 of 2014 (O&M) 2 FAO No.528 of 2014 (O&M) PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED +.. Appellant versus M/S P.P. INDUSTRIES AND ANR. ++Respondents FAO No.530 of 2014 (O&M) PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED +.. Appellant versus M/S J.R. INDUSTRIES AND ANR. ++Respondents FAO No.539 of 2014 (O&M) PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED +.. Appellant versus M/S SANGRUR INDUSTRIAL CORP. LTD. AND ANR. ++Respondents FAO No.540 of 2014 (O&M) PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED +.. Appellant versus M/S SANGRUR INDUSTRIAL CORP. LTD. AND ANR. ++Respondents FAO No.543 of 2014 (O&M) PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED +.. Appellant versus M/S SHIV SHAKTI ELECTRICALS AND ANR. GOPAL KRISHAN ++Respondents 2015.06.30 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh FAO No.517 of 2014 (O&M) 3 FAO No.551 of 2014 (O&M) PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED +.. Appellant versus M/S ANDERSONS ASSOCIATES & ANR ++Respondents FAO No.756 of 2014 (O&M) PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED +.. Appellant versus M/S SARAF INDUSTRIES PVT LTD & ANR ++Respondents
1. M/s Rubtech Mech (India) LLP (Through its Director/Partner/CEO) Registered Office at: Plot No.896, Udhyog Vihar, Phase1, Gurugram, Haryana122 016. ........Defendant no.1 2. Mr. Daljeet Singh Director/Partner/CEO M/s Rubtech Mech (India) LLP Registered Office at: Plot No.896, Udhyog Vihar, Phase1, Gurugram, Haryana122 016. ........Defendant no.2 ......Defendants Raj Through: Mr. Rohit Dahiya and Ms.Maithili Moondra, advocates. Kumar Tripathi Date of filing of suit : 16.02.2024 Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Arguments heard on : 19.04.2025 and 29.04.2025 Tripathi Date of Judgment : 06.05.2025 Date: 2025.05.06 12:28:09 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.111/2024 (M/s Briny Overseas vs. M/s Rubtech Mech (India) LLP & Another) Page 1 of 19 JUDGMENT: 1.1 This is a suit for recovery filed by plaintiff against defendants, wherein, the following prayer(s) are made: "a) Pass a decree for recovery of outstanding amount in favour of plaintiff and against defendants of Rs.6,54,576/ (Rupees Six Lakh Fifty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Six only); b) Pass a decree for recovery of interest and damages for the loss occurred due to nonpayment of outstanding amount, which include part of the damages, interest, GST delayed payment interest, opportunity costs and other losses faced by plaintiff of Rs.2,00,000/ (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) as damages and interest; c) Pass a decree in favour of plaintiff and against defendants awarding pendente lite and future interest @ 21% per annum from the date of raising of the invoices till its actual realization; d) Award all costs, charges, litigation cost and expenses of the suit/proceedings in favour of plaintiff and against defendants; e) Pass such other and further order(s)/relief(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice." Brief facts of the case: 2.1 Plaintiff, a proprietorship concern, is engaged in the business of supplying raw materials including rubber and chemicals, necessary for operations of various industries. Mr.Paras Sharma is proprietor of plaintiff firm. 2.2 Defendant no.1 is a registered firm and defendant no.2 Mr. Daljeet Singh is the director/p
(2011) 4 SCC 616, Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the law required delivery of a copy of the award signed by the Council. The delivery of the award and 3 receipt of the same by a party, would set in motion several periods of limitation, in respect of (a) filing an application for correction and interpretation of an award under Section 33(1), (b) filing an application for making an additional award under Section 33(4), (c) and filing an application for setting aside the award under Section 34(3) and so on. Delivery of a copy of the award had the effect of conferring certain rights on the parties and the duty to exercise those rights within the prescribed period of limitation. Thus, limitation for filing an application for setting aside the award should be calculated from the date of receipt of a signed copy of the award. In this case, limitation had not begun to run and the time for challenging the award had not expired. 5. Mr. Mukherjee urged that, the procedure provided by the statute should have been followed by the MSME council. Any other mode of communication of the award would not be in accordance with law. The period of limitation to challenge such award did not start to run on mere dispatch of a certified copy of the award. Dispatch of a certified copy of the award was not due compliance of the legal mandate. The execution case could be filed when the time prescribed by law for the award debtor to challenge the award had expired. Under such circumstances, the present executio
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED Appearance: BANSI M KARIA(9320) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 RAJVI N PATEL(9620) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR AJAY R MEHTA(453) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 Date : 27/02/2020 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The word 'domicile' is "to identify the personal law by which an individual is governed in respect of various matters such as the essential validity of a marriage, the effect of marriage on the proprietary rights of husband and wife, jurisdiction in divorce and nullity of marriage, illegitimacy, legitimation and adoption and testamentary and intestate succession to moveables. "Domicile" as pointed Page 2 of 65 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 10:37:52 IST 2020 C/SCA/2053/2020 JUDGMENT out in Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition) vol. 8, paragraph 421 is the legal relationship between an individual and a territory with a distinct legal system, which invokes that system as his personal law.It is well settled that the domicile of a person in that country in which he either has or is deemed by law to have his permanent home. "By domicile" said Lord Cranworth in Wicker v. Humes, [1858] 7 HL Cases 124, "We mean home, the permanent home". 2. "Domicile" is basically a legal concept for the purpose of determining what is the personal law applicable to an individual and even if an ind
$ M/s. Rashtriya Ispath Nigam Limited, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its General Manager, RMIIP/Construction ....Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Gopal S. Hegde, Senior Counsel, Assisted by Sri Koneru Prabhakara Rao Representing Sri Y.N.Anjaneyacharyulu ^ Counsel for respondent : < Gist : > Head Note: ? Cases Referred: 1. 1970 (1) SCC 670 2. (1969) 1 SCC 718 3. 2013 SCC OnLine Kar 125 RNT, J 3 CRP No.2936 of 2024 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2936 of 2024 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri Gopal S. Hegde, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri Koneru Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri Y. N. Anjaneyacharyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitionerM/s.Real Fab India Private Limited, Plot No.15, Daspalla Hills, Visakhapatnam, represented by its Managing DirectorKoneru Karunakara Rao, the claimant in Claim No.21C/IFC/2013/19266, being aggrieved from the Order dated 17.09.2024 passed in CEP GR Nos.1694 and 1772 of 2024, by the Judge, Special Court for trial and disposal of Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam (in short 'Special Court'). 3. The prayer in the civil revision petition is to set aside the Order dated 17.09.2024 and to restore the petition on the file of the Special Court with effect from the date it was presented for enforcement and to proceed further in accordance with law in a time bound manner and pass such other order/orders as deemed fit and proper by this Court. 4. By Order dated 17.09.2024, under challenge, the learned Special Judge rejected the execution petition as not maintainable. 5. The petitioner herein is a Small Scale Industrial Undertaking holding registration No.012003216PMTSSI, dated 24.03.1984. The petitioner was RNT, J 4 CRP No.2936 of 2024 the claimant in the Case No.21C/IFC/2013/19266. An Award dated 25.10.2018 was passed in its favour by Andhra Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council at Vijayawada (in short 'Council') established under Section 20 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (in short 'MSMED Act'). The claimant made a claim of Rs.22,74,31,117/ against the respondent herein, M/s. Rashtriya Ispath Nigam Limited, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam, represented by its General Manager in short 'RINL'). 6. The operative part of the Award dated 25.10.2018 is as under: "1. The reference petition No.21C/IFC/2013/19226 is allowed in terms of prayer. 2. T
1. MICRO Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai Region, SIDCO Corporate building, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. Rep. by its Chairman. 2. The Chief Engineer, Materials Management TANGEDCO Ltd., 133, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in MSME/CR/279/2018 dated 20.10.2020, quash the same and direct the 1st and 2nd respondent to 1/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.5733 of 2022 record that conciliation proceedings are not successful with provisions of Section 18 (30 of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (Act 27 of 2006) within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioner : Mr.Y.Ramanaiah For Respondents : Mr.R.Kumaravel, Additional Government Pleader For R2 ****** ORDER In the captioned writ petition Mr.Y.Ramanaiah, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.R.Kumaravel learned Additional Government Pleader who accepts notice on behalf of second respondent (TANGEDCO) are before this Court. To be noted, first respondent 'MICRO Small Enterprises Facilitation Council' [hereinafter 'said Council' for the sake of convenience and clarity] made an 'order dated 20.10.2020 bearing reference MSEFC/CR/279/2018' [hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] which has been assailed in the captioned writ petition. 2. Owing to the short point in the captioned main writ petition and acute angle on which the whole matter turns, main writ petition was taken up with the consent of learned counsel on both sides. To be noted, 2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.5733 of 2022 first respondent is said Council which made the impugned order and therefore, the presence of said Council before this Court is not necessary for disposal of captioned writ petition, more so, when there are no allegations of mala fides. 3. The case of writ petitioner is that it is a company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing certain conductors described as ACSR/AAA conductors. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that these conductors were supplied to Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) but monies qua such supplies remain unpaid and therefore they approached said Council for
Bombay High Court State Of Maharashtra Through The Urban ... vs Adi Dara Patel And Ors on 21 April, 2016 JudgmentWP.1468.2009+.doc ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1468 OF 2009 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 336 OF 2010 1. Adi Dara Patel } having his address at Westmore } Apartment, Pochkhanawala Road, } Worli, Mumbai 400 025 (through } his constituted attorney Vikas } Walawalkar, partner of petitioner} no. 3) } } 2. Kavas Dara Patel ig } having his address at C22, } River Nest, 311 North Main Road, } Lane 'E' Koregaon Park, } Pune 411 001 (through his } constituted attorney Vikas } Walawalkar, partner of } petitioner no. 3) } } 3. Samartha Development } Corporation } a partnership firm having its } address at 11A Suyash Near } Amar Hind Mandal, Gokhale Road } (North) Dadar, Mumbai 400 028 } versus 1. Mr. S. R. Jondhale } former Additional Collector } and competent authority, ULC, } Greater Mumbai, now Personal } Secretary to the Hon'ble } Education Minister } Mr. Radhakrishna Vikhe Patil } having his office at Room } No. 130, Main Building, } Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 021 } Page 1 of 150 J.V.Salunke,PA ::: Uploaded on 22/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on 24/04/2016 00:00:22 ::: JudgmentWP.1468.2009+.doc 2. Mr. Mahendra Varbhuvan } currently the Additional Collector } and Competent Authority, ULC, } Greater Mumbai, having his office } at 5 th floor, Administrative } Building, Bandra (East), } Mumbai 400 051 } } 3. State of Maharashtra } Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032, } Service through Government } Pleader, High Court Bombay } } 4. City Survey Officer (Andheri) } having his office at Sardar } Vallahbhai Patel Nagar, } Achyutrao Patwardhan Marg, ig } Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 053 } } 5. The Court Receiver } nd Bombay High Court, 2 floor, } Bank of India Building, } M. G. Road, Fort, } Mumbai 400 023 } } 6(a) Maria Sofia Jehangir Patel } of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant, } residing at Gulestan, } Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005 } } 6(b) Pesi Shavak Patel } of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant, } residing at Lyndewoode House, } Bomanji Petit Road, } Mumbai 400 026 } Respondent nos. 6(a) and 6(b) } in their capacity as the } Executors of the Will of late } Jehangir Pestonji Patel } } 7(a) Yezdi Hiri Malegam } of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant, } residing at Gulestan, } P. Pethe Marg, Colaba Cuffe } Parade, Mumbai 400 005 } Page 2 of 150 J.V.Salunke,PA ::: Uploaded on 22/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on 24/04/2016 00:00:22 :::
SUIT FOR MONEY RECOVERY OF RS. 3,49,366/ JUDGMENT: PLAINTIFF'S CASE 1. Plaintiff company has filed the present suit for recovery mainly on the basis of the following averments: (i) That plaintiff company is engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading and marketing of consumer electronics goods, IT and Telecom products. The defendant no.2 (D2 in short) (proprietor of defendant no.1) (D1 in short) approached plaintiff for purchasing consumer electronic goods on credit and D2 promised to pay the amount of goods within 30 days and agreed to pay 18% interest p.a. after the aforesaid period. (ii) That defendant purchased the aforesaid products from the plaintiff through various invoices during the period with effect from 17.10.2016 to 11.12.2017 in the name of D1 which were duly received and acknowledged by the defendant. (iii) That plaintiff maintained a running account regarding the transaction held between them and defendant and they duly made all the entries related to the payments made by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant stopped making payment, thus, plaintiff raised issue of pending amount of Rs.9,28,904/ with the defendant and after negotiations defendant agreed to return goods of Rs.3,63,101/ and also Case No. CS(COMM)/483/2021 M/s Salora International Ltd. Vs. M/s Kunal Traders & Anr. 2/20 issued two post dated cheques bearing no.584934 dated 02.07.2018 and cheque no. 584933 dated 03.08.2018 of Rs.1,50,000/ each. The cheque no. 584933 was returned unpaid three times by the bankers of the defendant thus, defendant issued fresh cheque no.738669 dated 20.09.2018 of Rs.2,00,000/ which also got dishonoured. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a criminal complaint (bearing no.115/2019) before Ld. CMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and in that matter on 16.05.2019, a settlement was arrived at between the parties and defendant agreed to pay the dishonoured cheque amount of Rs.2,00,000/ in four installments and last installment was paid on 01.10.2019. The said payment was made against the total outstanding of Rs.4,35,683/. It is stated that at the time of giving the cheque of Rs.2,00,000/ an amount of Rs.4,17,303/ was due toward principle including the bank charges. After adjusting the aforesaid amount, an amount of Rs.2,17,303/ remained due. It is stated that the total due amount alongwith 18% p.a. interest comes to Rs.3,49,366/. (iv) That plaintiff demanded the outstanding amount through legal notice dated 13.10.2020 and defendant failed to pay the outstanding amount despite service of legal notice. The defendant also did not appear during preinstitution mediation proceeding thus, on 20.09.2021, nonstarter report was issued by DLSA. Thus, on the basis of these averments, plaintiff prayed for a decree of Rs.3,49,366/ alongwith @18% p.a. pendentelite and future interest and cost of the suit. Case No. CS(COMM)/483/2021 M/s Salora International Ltd. Vs. M/s Kunal Traders & Anr. 3/20 DEFENDANT'S CASE 2. Defendant contested the present suit mainly on the basis of the following averments made in the preliminary objection
Delhi High Court Union Of India vs Mago Constructions Pvt. Ltd on 14 January, 2026 $~ * Reserved on: 2nd September, 2025 Date of Decision: 14th January, 2026 Date of uploading: 14th January, 2026 + O.M.P. (COMM) 409/2019 UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vijay Joshi and Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advs. versus MAGO CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Udit Seth and Mr. Vivek GB, Advocates % HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA JUDGMENT MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J: 1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ['Act of 1996'] has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the arbitral award dated 12.04.2019 ['impugned award'] passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings pertaining to the contract bearing CA No. CEDZ//28 of 2008 09: Provn of OTM Accn for INF BNIII of 60 INF BDE at Delhi Cantt. ['the Contract'] executed between the parties herein. 2. The Petitioner herein i.e., Union of India was the respondent and the Respondent herein i.e., Mago Constructions Pvt. Ltd. was the claimant in the Signature Not Verified O.M.P. (COMM) 409/2019 Page 1 of 39 Signed By:MAHIMA SHARMA Signing Date:14.01.2026 18:48 arbitral proceedings. For ease of reference, the parties are being referred to as their rank and status in the present proceedings. Factual Matrix 3. The facts, as stated in the pleadings, which are relevant for the adjudication of the present matter, are summarised as under: 3.1. The parties herein entered into the Contract for construction of KLP for IIIrd Infantry Battalion of 60 Infantry Brigade at Delhi Cantt for a sum a of Rs. 19,14,30,870/. The work under the Contract was to be completed within a period of twentysix [26] months and was covered under three [3] phases. 3.2. It is stated that PhaseI covered construction of buildings as per AppendixD to ScheduleA of the Contract. The time period for completion of this phase was twentythree [23] months from the date of beginning of said works. 3.3. The second phase i.e., PhaseII covered construction of all other buildings as was mentioned in Section I to ScheduleA of the Contract and other parts of the schedule. The time period for this phase was twenty [20] months. And the last phase i.e., PhaseIII covered dismantling and demolition of all the buildings except those that were already covered under Phaseland as stated in AppendixB to ScheduleA of the Contract. The time period for this phase was five [5] months. 3.4. The site for work was initially handed over to the Respondent vide Work Order No.1 (P) dated 07.02.2009 with date of commencement of work as 16.02.2009 for PhaseI and II and as 16.11.2010 for PhaseIII. Signature Not Verified O.M.P. (COMM) 409/2019 Page 2 of 39 Signed By:MAHIMA SHARMA Signing Date:14.01.2026 18:48 3.5. It is stated that the Contract was duly amended on 05.12.2013 and thirteen [13] building
Accused : Sri. Lokesh.B.R. Age 39 years, R/at.No.152, 'Sri Bhyraveshwara Nilaya', The Proprietor of 'Sri Bhyraveshwara Traders', 1st Main Road, 2nd Block, HMT Layout, 2 C.C.15795/2020 Nagasandra Post, Bengaluru 560 073. { By Sri.N.Shiva Murthy Advocate } Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act., Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty Final Order : Accused is Convicted Date of Order : 02012024 JUDGMENT The present complaint is filed under section 2(d) read with 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"). 3 C.C.15795/2020 02. The factual matrix of the complaint is summarized as under; It is alleged that, the complainant and accused are known to each other since for the past six years. The accused has been running the sole trading business in the name of 'Sri Bhyraveshwara Traders' and selling cement in the HMT Layout, Nagasandra Post, Bengaluru. In order to have working capital, the accused has approached the complainant for financial assistance of Rs.5,00,000/ in the month of January 2020 and on 06.02.2020, the complainant has lent a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ to the accused by way of cash. The accused had agreed to repay the said amount within three months. It is further alleged that, the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.277536 Dated 07.05.2020 for Rs.5,00,000/ drawn on State Bank Mysore, Peenya 2 nd Stage Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant. The complainant has presented the above said cheque for encashment through her banker on the same date, it has returned with shara as "Funds 4 C.C.15795/2020 Insufficient" as per banker's memo dated on 08.05.2020. Thereafter, on the request of the accused, the cheque was presented on 16.05.2020, again the cheque returned due to "Funds Insufficient" as per return memo dated 18.05.2020. Thereafter, the complainant got issued demand notice on 27.05.2020, to the accused and the said notice was duly served to the accused on 02.06.2020 and the accused has also given untenable reply to his notice. Thus, the complainant has sought to punish the accused and award him suitable compensation. 03. On presentation of the complaint and after verification of the averments of the complaint as well as the annexed documents, this court took the cognizance for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act. As per the verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Indian Bank Association and others V/s Union of India and others, the sworn statement of the complainant has been recorded by way of examinationinchief as PW.1 and got marked in all seven documents at Ex.P.01 to Ex.P.07. After 5 C.C.15795/2020 scrutinizing the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant primafacie case is made out for the trial. Accordingly, by registering criminal case in Register No. III, summons has been issued against the accused. 04. In response to the summons, the accused put his appearance before the court through his counsel and filed bail application under section 436 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accuse