abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Delhi High Court Himalayan Solar Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr. on 3 July, 2023 * Date of decision: 03rd JULY, 2023 IN THE MATTER OF: + W.P.(C) 3922/2023 & CM APPL. 15281/2023 SUNGRACE ENERGY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Anil Rathi, Ms. Ranu Purohit, Ms. Aditi Dani, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Arnav Kumar, Mr. Gurdas Khurana, Advocates for UOI Mr. Bharat Sangal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Babita Kushwaha, Advocate for R2 + W.P.(C) 3932/2023 & CM APPL. 15346/2023 GEIE SOLAR PRODUCTS INDIA PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Anil Rathi, Ms. Ranu Purohit, Ms. Aditi Dani, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Subhash Tanwar, CGSC with Mr.Hardik Bedi, GP, Mr. Ashish Choudhary, Advocate for UOI Mr. Bharat Sangal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Babita Kushwaha, Advocate for R2 + W.P.(C) 3936/2023 & CM APPL. 15350/2023 GRAND BUSINESS VENTURES (SUGUNA) ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Anil Rathi, Ms. Ranu Purohit, Ms. Aditi Dani, Advocates Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR W.P.(C) 3922/2023 etc. Page 1 of 16 Signing Date:04.07.2023 13:02:30 versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sandeep Kr. Mahapatra, CGSC with Ms. Deepa Malik, GP, Ms.Mrinmayee Sahu, Advocate for UOI Mr. Bharat Sangal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Babita Kushwaha, Advocate for R2 + W.P.(C) 3937/2023 & CM APPL. 15351/2023 HIMALAYAN SOLAR PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Anil Rathi, Ms. Ranu Purohit, Ms. Aditi Dani, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Arnav Kumar, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Bhaskar Pandey, GP, Mr. Rishesh Mani Tripathi, Advocate for UOI Mr. Bharat Sangal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Babita Kushwaha, Advocate for R2 + W.P.(C) 3938/2023 & CM APPL. 15352/2023 AUSTRALIAN PREMIUM SOLAR ..... Petitioner
Karnataka High Court M/S American Road Technology And ... vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike on 27 September, 2023 1 NC: 2023:KHC:35353 WP No. 7725 of 2023 DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ® WRIT PETITION NO. 7725 OF 2023 (LBBMP) BETWEEN: M/S AMERICAN ROAD TECHNOLOGY AND SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 604 B, QUEENS APARTMENT, QUEENS CIRCLE, BANGALORE 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MRS. BHANU PRABHA. ...PETITIONER (BY SMT. JAYNA KOTHARI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRA V., ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed by 1. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NARAYANAPPA N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU, LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH KARNATAKA 560 002. COURT OF REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. KARNATAKA 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CELLR1), BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGRA PALIKE, 2ND FLOOR, ANNEXE BUILDING3, BBMP HEAD OFFICE, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE 560 002. 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 2 NC: 2023:KHC:35353 WP No. 7725 of 2023 BANGALORE 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R3; SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TODIRECT THE R 1 AND 2 TO CLEAR ALL PAYMENTS DUE TO THE PETITIONER UNDER PACKAGE F FOR WORK ORDER DATED:26.05.2014 OF RS.93,21,667/ AND UNDER PACKAGE B FOR WORK ORDER DATED:4.1.2017 OF RS.2,24,93,87.40 ALONG WITH APPLICABLE INTEREST RATE FORTHWITH AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. To issue a writ, order(s), directions, writ(s) in the nature of the mandamus or any other writ or order directing the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 BBMP to clear all payment due to the Petitioner under Work Order for PackageF dated 26.5.2014 bearing No.EE/TEC/W.O./05/1415, produced herein as ANNEXUREB, of Rs.93,21,665/ (Rupees Ninety Three Lakhs Twenty One Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Five only) along with interest at 18% per annum; ii. To issue a writ, order(s), directions, writ(s) in the nature of the mandamus or any other writ or order directing the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 BBMP to clear all payment due to the Petitioner under PackageB for Work Order dated 4.2.2017 bearing No.EE/TEC/W.O./46/201617, produced herein as ANNEXUREC amounting to Rs.2,24,93,871.40 (Rupees Two Crores, TwentyFour Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy One 3 NC: 2023:KHC:35353 WP No. 7725 of 2023 and Forty paise) along with interest at 18% per annum; and iii. To pass any such further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner claims to be a leading service provider which does repairs of potholes on roads using the 'Python' machine. The petitioner was issued two work orders by respondentBruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP' for short) for PackageF and PackageB for pothole repair and
1. Complaint Case No. : 5328/09 2. Name of the complainant : M/s. Muthoot Leasing Finance Ltd., Corporate Office at 3C, White House, 10, Bhagwan Dass Road, New Delhi­110 001 3. Name of the accused and his : 1. M/s. Jai Mata Tours parentage and residence & Travels, A­99/1, Ground Floor, Shastri Nagar, Delhi­110 052 2. Shri Mani Ram S/o Shri Mohan Lal Partner M/s. Jai Mata Tours & Travels, A­99/1, Ground Floor, Shastri Nagar, Delhi­110 052 2 CC No. 5328/09 3. Ms. Preeti Bala Partner M/s. Jai Mata Tours & Travels, A­99/1, Ground Floor, Shastri Nagar, Delhi­110 052 4. Ms. Shashi Bala Partner M/s. Jai Mata Tours & Travels, A­99/1, Ground Floor, Shastri Nagar, Delhi­110 052 4. Offence complained of or proved: U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty 6. Final Order : Accused Nos. 1&2: Convicted Accused No. 3 and 4: Acquitted 7. Date of Order : 26.11.2011 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 1. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant is a limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its corporate office at New Delhi. Shri L.D. Sharma 3 CC No. 5328/09 has been authorized by the competent authority of the company to sign, verify and institute the present complaint through Power of Attorney which is Ex.CW1/2 vide Board Resolution true copy of which is Ex.CW1/1. 2. It is stated in the complaint that the accused No. 1 acting through accused Nos. 2 to 4 obtained on hire purchase basis an Ambassador Car vide a written agreement between the parties. The accused persons were bound to pay monthly hire charges as per the schedule of payment of the hire purchase agreement. It is further averred in the complaint that the accused in discharge of his part liability issued four cheques in question bearing cheque Nos. 644197, 644198, 644199 & 644200 respectively which are Ex.CW1/4 to Ex.CW1/7, all drawn on Central Bank of India, Ashoka Hotel, New Delhi­110021, for an amount of Rs.8,800/­ each and dated 28.10.2004, 28.11.2004, 28.12.2004 and
Bombay High Court M/S. Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs The Micro on 27 August, 2010 1 NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2145/2010 1. M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., A Government Company having its Registered Office at Ispat Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 2. Bhilai Steel Plant Through its Authorised Person, Factory at Bhilai, Dist. Durg (Chhattisgarh) .....PETITIONERS ...V E R S U S... 1. The Micro, Small Enterprise Facilitation Council, through Joint Director of Industries Nagpur Region, Office at Udyog Bhawan, Nagpur. 2. M/s. Vidarbha Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., a Industry incorporated under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Having its Registered Office at 5, Temple Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur Factory At: F13, MIDC, Industrial Area Hingna. ....RESPONDENTS ::: Downloaded on 09/06/2013 16:20:23 ::: 2 Mr. K. H. Deshpande, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. S. Khati, Advocate for petitioners. Mrs. Bharti Dangre, Addl. Government Pleader for respondent no.1. Mr. Suresh Dhole, Advocate for respondent no.2. MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. th DATE : 27 AUGUST , 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: S. A. Bobde, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. This is a petition by M/s. Steel Authority of India, questioning the jurisdiction of respondent no.1the Micro, Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (hereinafter referred to as "the Council") in entertaining a reference under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), in disputes, which have arisen between the petitioners as a buyer of goods from respondent no.2M/s. Vidarbha Ceramics Pvt. Ltd, as seller. ::: Downloaded on 09/06/2013 16:20:23 ::: 3 3. Respondent no.2M/s. Vidarbha Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Supplier") has supplied certain goods to the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as "the Buyers") under a contract for supply of Fire Clay Refractory CokeOven. According to the petitioners, the materials supplied by the supplier were defective and the supplier was, therefore, asked to replace the material. The supplier, apparently, admitted the defects in the material vide communications dated 01.01.2007, 25.01.2007 and 10.02.2007. The supplier, thereafter, issued a notice to the petitioners and
The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7, Pune .... ��यथ� / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 334/PUN/2015 �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 201011 The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7, Pune .... अपीलाथ�/Appellant Vs. TIBCO Software India Pvt. Ltd., 'Binarius', Floor No.2 and 3, Deepak Complex, National Games Road, Shastri Nagar, Yerwada, Pune 411006 .... ��यथ� / Respondent PAN: AACCT6136F 2 ITA No. 276/PUN/2015 ITA No.334/P UN/2015 CO No.04/PUN/2016 TIBCO Software India Pvt. Ltd. ��या�ेप सं./CO No.04/PUN/2016 �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 201011 (out of ITA No. 334/PN/2015) TIBCO Software India Pvt. Ltd., 'Binarius', Floor No.2 and 3, Deepak Complex, National Games Road, Shastri nagar, Yerwada, Pune 411006 ... ��या�ेपक/ Cross objector PAN: AACCT6136F Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7, Pune .... ��यथ� / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Gupta Revenue by : S/Shri S.K. Rastogi, CIT and Suhas Kulkarni, JCIT सुनवाई क� तार�ख / घोषणा क� तार�ख / Date of Hearing : 10.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 31.01.2017 आदे श / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: Out of this bunch of appeals, cross appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are against order of DCIT, Circle 7, Pune, dated 30.01.2015 relating to assessment year 201011 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Incometax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). Further, the assessee also filed Cross Objections against the appeal of Revenue. 3 ITA No. 276/PUN/2015 ITA No.334/P UN/2015 CO No.04/PUN/2016 TIBCO Software India Pvt. Ltd. 2. Both the cross appeals and cross objections relating to the same assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. First, we shall take up the appeal filed by the assessee, under which, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: A. Transfer Pricing matters Ground No. 1: Transfer Pricing adjustment The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO') pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred in rejecting the benchmarking approach adopted by the Appellant and thereby making a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.84,85,743 to the income of the Appellant by holding that the international transaction of provision of marketing and sales support services does not comply with the arm's length principle as envisaged under Chapter X of the Incometax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Ground No. 2: Erroneous rejection of the fresh search analysis conducted by the assessee The Hon'ble DRP / Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred in disregarding the fresh search analysis conducted by the assessee using the data for Financial Year ('FY') 200910, whereas the Ld. AO/TPO had himself carried out a selective fresh search/ analysis by applying certain additional quantitative / qualitative filters in order to eliminate companies that would otherwise be comparable resulting in cherry picking of comparables which contradicts with the principles of conducting sear
1. M/s Golden Jubilee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Resolution Professional Mr. Subodh Kumar Agarwal IBBI/IPA001/IPP00087/2001718/10183 Having its registered office at: Survey No. 64, Beside Shiparamam, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana 500081. ...Respondent No. 1 Email: [email protected] 2. Committee of Creditors M/s Golden Jubilee Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Survey No. 64, Beside Shiparamam, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana 500081. Email: Not Available ...Respondent No. 2 3. Telangana State Tourism Corporation Limited Government of Telangana DBlock, 2nd floor, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana 500081 Email : [email protected] ...Respondent No. 3 4. Shilparamam Arts, Crafts & Cultural Society Hi Tech City Main Road, Hitec City, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana 500081. 2 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 426, 430, 432 &710 of 2020 Email: [email protected] ...Respondent No. 4 5. BREP Asia II Indian Holding Co. II (NQ) Pte. Ltd. 77, Robinson Road #1300 Robinson 77, Singapore 068896 Email: [email protected] ...Respondent No. 5 Present For Appellants: Ms. Priya Kumar & Mr. Shivam Goel, Advocates For Respondents: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Mr. Aviral Singhal, Mr. D. Kapila, Adv. for SRA. Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate for R2. PCS, Manoj Kumar Koyalkar, Adv. for R3. Mr. Swapnil Gupta, Mr. Abhinav Mishra, Mr. Vaibhav Mendirata, Advocates for R4. With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 430 of 2020 (Arising out of the Order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, in I.A. No. 960 of 2019 in I.A. No. 32 of 2019 in C.P. (IB) No. 248/7/HDB/2017.) IN THE MATTER OF: Consolidated Engineering Company Through its Partner, Office at KBlock, Chaudhary Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110001. ...Appellant Versus 3 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 426, 430, 432 &710 of 2020 1. Subodh Kumar Agrawal Former Resolution Professional of Golden Jubilee Hotels Private Limited, 1, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 3rd Floor, Room No. 301, Kolkata 700013. ...Respondent No. 1 2. Golden Jubilee Hotels Private Limited Through Successful Resolution Applicant Survey No. 64, Beside Shilpakalavedika,, Shilparamam, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana 500081. ...Respondent No. 2 3. BREP Asia II Indian Holding Co. II (NQ) Pte. Ltd. 77, Robinson Road #1300 Robinson 77, Singapore 068896 ...Respondent No. 3 Email: [email protected] 4. Committee of Creditors Golden Jubilee Hotels Private Limited Survey No. 64, Beside Shilpakalavedika, Shilparamam, Madhapur, Hyderabad 500081. ...Respondent No. 4 Present For Appellants: Mr. Uddyam Mukherjee & Mr. Swapnil Pattanayak, Adv. For Respondents: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Mr. Aviral Singhal, Mr. D. Kapila, Adv. for SRA Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate for R4 4 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 426, 430, 432 &710 of 2020 With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 432 of 2020 (Arising out of the Order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyde
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 : Mon Jun 15 14:47:32 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 indivi
1. NBCC (India) Limited, (formerly known as National Building Construction Corporation Limited), a Government of India Enterprise, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003, represented by its Deputy General Manager, HRM and duly authorised Officer. 2. The State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner of Industries & Commerce, Udyog Bhawan, Bamunimaidam, Guwahati 781021. 3. The Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Bamunimaidam, Guwahati 781021, to be served through the Director of Industries, Assam, Guwahati, Udyog Bhawan, Bamunimaidam, Guwahati 781021. Writ Appeal No.135/2022 Page 1 of 14 4. The Union of India, to be represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Industry, Government of India, Udhyog Bhawan, New Delhi 110001. ........Respondents BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate. Ms. V. Ray, Advocate. Ms. P. Agarwala, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Thakur, Advocate and Ms. J.R. Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.1. : Mr. N. Kalita, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A. Kalita, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3. : Ms. L. Devi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.4. Date of Hearing : 18.06.2024. Date of Judgment : 21.06.2024. JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ) Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1; Mr. N. Kalita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A. Kalita, learned standing counsel, Industries & Commerce Department for respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.4. Writ Appeal No.135/2022 Page 2 of 14 2. This writ appeal is filed by the appellant assailing the judgment & order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.3959/2018, whereby the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondent NBCC (India) Limited, has set aside the minutes of the meeting dated 12.03.2018 of the Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (hereinafter to be referred as "Council"). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Chief Project Manager of the respondent NBCC (India) Limited had invited sealed quotations from manufacturers/suppliers for supply of steel and cement vide Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 29.01.1993. Pursuant to the said NIT, the appellant had submitted its quotation and the said quotation of the appellant was accepted. The NBCC (India) Limited had placed supply orders to the appellant for supply of steel at different worksites on various dates running from 16.02.1993 to 31.03.1993. As per the appellant, the steel was supplied by it to the NBCC (India) Limited, how
Delhi High Court Dr Harshita Malu & Anr. vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 16 February, 2024 $~ * % Reserved on: January 24, 2024 Decided on: February 16, 2024 + CRL.M.C. 6099/2023 & CRL.M.A. 22926/2023 (stay) DR HARSHITA MALU & ANOTHER ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Suri, Mr. Saud Khan, Mr. Tushan Rawal, Mr. Shivaz Berry and Mr. R. Jude Rohit, Advocates. V STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANOTHER ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC (Criminal) with Mr. Kunal Mittal, Mr. Arjit Sharma and Ms. Rishika, Advocates for State along with Insp. Manjusha, P.S. R.K. Puram. Mr. Kumud Shekhar and Mr. Murari Singh, Advocates for R2. + CRL.M.C. 6100/2023 & CRL.M.A. 22928/2023 (stay) VINEET MALU ..... Petitioner Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:19.02.2024 CRL.M.C. 6099/2023 & connected matters Page 1 11:45:33 Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Suri, Mr. Saud Khan, Mr. Tushan Rawal, Mr. Shivaz Berry and Mr. R. Jude Rohit, Advocates. V STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANOTHER ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC (Criminal) with Mr. Kunal Mittal, Mr. Arjit Sharma and Ms. Rishika, Advocates for State. Mr. Kumud Shekhar and Mr. Murari Singh, Advocates for R2. + CRL.M.C. 6101/2023 & CRL.M.A. 22930/2023 (stay) VIKAS MALU ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Suri, Mr. SaudKhan, Mr. Tushan Rawal, Mr. Shivaz Berry and Mr. R. Jude Rohit, Advocates. V STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANOTHER
Madras High Court C.Prabhakaran vs The Chairman on 15 July, 2022 W.P.Nos.8685 and 8275/2018 DATED : 15.07.2022 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P.Nos.8685 and 8275/2018 1.C.Prabhakaran 2.N.Rajkumar 3.K.Saravanan 4.M.Ramar 5.R.Vinoth Kumar 6.N.Sivasubramanian 7.K.Jaisankar 8.G.Gnanasekaran 9.S.Ramesh Kumar 10.K.Suresh 11.S.Srinivasan 12.A.M.Selvakumar 13.K.C.Rajhenthiran 14.S.Rajaram 15.M.Suresh 16.S.Rajamani 17.K.Mohammed Alimullah 18.G.M.Sathish Kumar 19.T.Krishnakumar 20.J.Maharajan 21.I.R.Manimegalai 22.S.Jeyanthi 23.M.Gunasekaran 24.K.Thanasekar 25.T.K.Raghu 26.K.Jayalakshmi 27.M.Subramanian ...Petitioners in W.P.No.8685/2018 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/38 W.P.Nos.8685 and 8275/2018 B.Saravanaperumal ...Petitioner in W.P.No.8275/2018 Vs 1.The Chairman Chennai Port Trust, Chennai1. 2.The Deputy Chairman Chennai Port Trust Chennai1. 3.The Chief Engineer Chennai Port Trust, Civil Engineering Department, Chennai1. 4.The Secretary Chennai Port Trust, General Administration Department, Chennai1. ...Respondents in both petitions Common Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to grant promotion to the writ petitioners as Supervisor GradeI (now redesignated as Junior Engineer GradeI) on completion of 8 years of service from the date of the appointment as Supervisor Grade – II in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.8724/2007 dated 06.11.2013 and in implementation of the terms of Settlement contained in the proceedings of the 1st respondent in its No.U1/XX/7818/78/5 dated 12.04.1978 with all attendant and consequential monetary benefits. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/38 W.P.Nos.8685 and 8275/2018 For Petitioners in both petitions : Mr.V.Vijay Shankar For Respondents in both petitions : Mr.M.R.Dharani Chander Standing Counsel COMMON ORDER (1)Since the issue raised in these writ petitions is common, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both sides, these writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. (2)All these petitioners were appointed initially on temporary basis as Supervisor Grade II [Civil] in the respondents Port Trust during the year 19971998. Subsequently, according to the averment made in the affidavit filed in support of these writ petitions, they were regularised under Regulation 10 of the Madras Port Trust Employees' [Appointment, Promotion etc] Regulations [in short ''the Regulations