abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Madras High Court A.Michael Raj vs Bharat Electronics Ltd on 8 September, 2022 Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.154 of 2022 DATED: 08.09.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.154 of 2022 A.Michael Raj Sole Proprietor of M/s.Typhoon Electronics Having Office at 9/25, NH2, Vallalar Street Maraimalainagar, Chennai 603 209 ... Petitioner vs. Bharat Electronics Ltd., Through its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office Outer Ring Road, Nagavara Bangalore 560 045. ... Respondent PRAYER: Arbitration Original Petition filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, pleased to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and respondent as per clause 14 of the Standard Terms, Conditions & Instructions to Purchase Order (Inland). 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.154 of 2022 For Petitioner : Mr.Antony R.Julian For Respondent : M/s.T.Madhusudhan Reddy, Mr.G.Nagarajan ********** ORDER The petitioner states that he is a registered vendor of the respondent. Upon receipt of purchase orders from the respondent, he states that goods were supplied under 97 invoices issued between April 2017 and November 2020. According to the petitioner, the invoices remain unpaid. Therefore, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause contained in the standard terms, conditions and instructions applicable to the purchase order and issued notice dated 01.10.2021 under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Arbitration Act) and called upon the respondent to accept the arbitrator nominated by the petitioner. In response, the respondent denied liability by alleging that the purchase orders and invoices were fabricated and that criminal proceedings were instituted in respect thereof. 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.154 of 2022 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the existence of the arbitration clause is admitted by the respondent. The respondent also admits receipt of the Section 21 notice. With regard to the allegations of fraud, he submits that the fraud is not in respect of the execution of the arbitration agreement and does not vitiate the transaction. Consequently, he states that the dispute remains arbitrable in terms of the law laid down in Vidya Drolia and others vs Durga Trading Corporation (Vidya Drolia) in Civil Appeal No.2402 of 2019 with Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.5605 5606 of 2019 and Special Leave Petition No.11877 of 2020. With regard to the allegation that the relevant agreement is not adequately stamped, he denies such assertion on the ground that the agreement falls within the scope of the exemption under Article 5 of the schedule to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 3. These contentions are refuted by learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent states that FIR No.3 of 2020 was registered by the N
Delhi High Court Orders M/S Swastik Oil Products Manufacturing ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 5 February, 2024 $~4 * + ARB.P. 976/2023 M/S SWASTIK OIL PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING NAVSARI PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S. K. Chaturvedi with Ms. Ankita, Ms. Josna, Ms. Sheereen, Advs along with petitioner in person (M. 9811756975) versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Akash Vajpai, Adv. for R2 (M. 9711904919) JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER % 05.02.2024 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the PetitionerM/s Swastik Oil Products Manufacturing Navsari Pvt. Ltd. arises out of a contract dated 11th October, 2022 (hereinafter, the agreement) for supply of 36,540 Litres of Oil OM15 Lubricant to the Director General Supplies and Transport (hereinafter, 'DGST') through the GeM portal. 3. The Petitioner's case is that despite completing the entire supply order, they have not received payment amounting to Rs.1,51,34,139/. After sending repeated reminders dated 30th June, 2023, 18th July, 2023, 18th August, 2023 for payment to no avail, the Petitioner finally invoked the arbitration clause on 1st September 2023. Following the invocation notice, no response was received, leading to the filing of this petition. 4. Notice of the petition was issued on 21st September, 2023. ARB.P. 976/2023 Page 1 of 3 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 07/02/2024 at 20:52:06 Subsequently, on 27th September 2023, the Respondent paid the entire outstanding amount to the Petitioner. The remaining issue to be resolved is the interest due on the delayed payment. 5. The submission of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that, the Petitioner is entitled to interest in terms of Section 16 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter, MSMED Act). He thus submits that almost Rs.13 lakhs is liable to be paid. 6. Respondent No. 2DGST submits that the dispute resolution clause in the agreement should not be invoked, given that the entire principal amount has been paid and there has been no specific invocation regarding the interest portion. 7. The Court has heard the matter. Given that the supplies were not disputed by the Respondent No. 2 and full payment has been made, there cannot be any issue in respect of the fact that the invocation was done properly in this matter, followed by the payment.
Supreme Court cases 40 where in bail proceedings of 2G Scam, Apex Court has reiterated principles of bail and not jail. 4. Learned APP Mr. K.P. Raval appearing for the State has pointed out to this Court that the total outstanding dues of UCO Bank and Allahabad Bank against the present applicant is Rs.5,00,970/ Learned APP has also challenged this application on the ground that it is an attempt to systematically siphon the amount which belongs to the public. It is further pointed out that the huge amount of money withdrawn from the suspense accounts of different banks is outstanding, to reflect the bonafides of the present applicant, however, it is ur
Delhi High Court Attal Plastics vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 May, 2025 * % Judgment reserved on: 25.04.2025 Judgment delivered on: 06.05.2025 + W.P.(C) 3816/2025, CM APPLS. 1777717778/2025 ATTAL PLASTICS .....Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA& ORS. .....Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner: Mr. Avi Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shiven Verma and Mr. Shikhar Garg, Advocates For the Respondent: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG, Mr. Sanat Kumar, Sr. Adv, Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Sr. Adv, Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC, Mr. Nishant Gautam, CGSC, Ms. Rukmini Bobde, CGSC with Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Ms. Shreya Jetly, Tushar Jain, Mr. Vinayak Aren, Ms. Kanika Gupta, Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Mr. Mayank Sharma and Mr. Vipul Verma, Advs with Mr. Rudra Paliwal and Mr. Amit Acharya, GP for UoI/NSICL. Mr. Milind Ramteka, Director, PM Vishwakarna, Ministry of MSMEs, GOI. Mr Kartikeya Tanton, Director, Planning and Marketing, NSICL. Mr. Rajesh Jain, Chief General Manager, NSICL. Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, Advocate with Ms. Meghna Jandu, Mr. Amar Bajpayee, Mr. Shubham Ranakoti & Mr. Bharat, Advocates for Respondent No.3. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA JUDGMENT Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 3816/2025 Page 1 of 21 By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Date:07.05.2025 15:31:11 TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. 1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking quashing of the notice dated 26.01.2025, whereby the petitioner was disqualified from the Technical Bid as also the subsequent notice dated 31.01.2025, whereby the Representation letter dated 26.01.2025 of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner further seeks quashing of the notice dated 26.01.2025, whereby the respondent no.3/Pragyawan Technologies Private Limited (hereinafter referred as "respondent no.3") was held to be technically qualified. A further prayer has been made to debar/blacklist respondent no.3 for committing fraud by submitting fraudulent documents to participate in the tender issued by respondent no.2/National Small Industries Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred as "Corporation") and to reconsider and re evaluate the Technical Bid of the petitioner. 2. The facts germane to the issue at hand and culled out from the present petition are as under: (i) The petitioner claims to be a proprietorship firm, duly registered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, having its registered office at 34468, Ground Floor, Opp. Reddy Women's College, Barkatpura, Hyderabad 500027, and stated to be engaged in the manufacturing and sale of nonwoven bags, school bags, duffle bags, laptop cases, luggage and trolley bags, delivery bags, recycled cotton bags, school belts and kits. (ii) Respondent no.1 is the Union of India through the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME). The Corporation is
Accused : Mr.G.R.Jayaraghavendhar, S/o Sri.G.Ramamurthy, Age 35 years, Proprietor, WIN REALTY, Having registered office at Mother residency building, No.647/183, Bengaluru National Highway, Hosur Town and Taluk, Krishnagiri District 635 109. { By Sri.Sandeep S.Murthy Advocate } Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act., Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty Final Order : Accused is Acquitted Date of Order : 10102022 JUDGMENT The present complaint is filed under section 2(d) read with section 200 of code of criminal procedure against the 3 C.C.6934/2019 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 matrix of the complaint is summarized as under; It is averred in the complaint that, the accused is well known to him and he was badly need of money. Accordingly, in the month of January 2018, he requested him to advance hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/. The complainant had advanced hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/ to the accused and the accused has promised to repay the same within six months. Further alleged that, towards discharge of the said hand loan amount, the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.253219 dated 28.01.2019 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ drawn on IDBI Bank, Hosur Branch,Tamilnadu in favour of the complainant. The complainant has presented the said cheque for 4 C.C.6934/2019 encashment through his bank i.e., Vijaya bank, Shanthinagar Branch, Bengaluru, but it returned unpaid with banker's endorsement dated 02.02.2019 as "Funds Insufficient". On 27.02.2019, demand notice was issued to the accused by RPAD, but the same was returned with a shara as "Door Locked" intimation delivered on 02.03.2019. The accused has not complied with the demand made by the complainant in the legal notice. Thus, it is sought to convict the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act and grant compensation as per section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 03. On presentation of complaint, this court has verified the averments of complaint along with records and thereby had taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act. Thereby, as per the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in AIR 2014 SC 1983 in the case of Indian Bank Association and others V/s Union 5 C.C.6934/2019 of India and others, the sworn statement of the complainant has been recorded as PW.1 and got exhibited seven documents at Ex.P.01 to 07. Having been made out the primafacie case, the complaint has been registered in Register No. III and issued process 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 accused has been enlarged on bail. The substance of accusation has been recorded and read over to the accused, he pleaded not guilty a
M/s.Kiara Microcredit Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records of the sole arbitrator in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in Arbitration Case No.9 of 2020 dated 23.09.2021, set aside the same. For Petitioner :Mr.K.Subramanian, Senior Advocate, for Mr.K.Hariharan For Respondent :Mr.G.Vairava Subramanian ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order, dated 23.09.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in Arbitration Case No.9 of 2020. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 2.The parties are referred to as per the rank mentioned before the Court below. 3.A memo has been filed on behalf of the Claimant before the Sole Arbitrator in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in Arbitration Case No.9 of 2020, to close the crossexamination of C.W.1 and continue the Arbitral proceedings further. The said memo was rejected on 23.09.2021. Against the said rejection order, the applicant is before this Court. 4.Heard on either side. Perused the material documents available on records. 5.This Civil Revision Petition is filed on the ground that there is no adequate efficacious alternative remedy available in law to canvass the correctness of the impugned order passed by the sole arbitrator in Arbitration Case No.9 of 2020, dated 23.09.2021 except to approach this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. As per rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 6.The Applicant/Claimant/Petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition to set aside the order, dated 23.09.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in Arbitration Case No.9 of 2020, passed by the sole Arbitrator. 7.As per agreement between the parties, dated 15.03.2018, in O.P.No. 331 of 2020, a sole arbitrator was appointed by this Court on 02.09.2020. Both the parties are agreed to lead oral evidences. 8.C.W.1 was examined in chief and cross in part. At this stage, the revision petitioner has filed a memo on 05.09.2021 to close the cross examination of C.W.1. 9.The petitioner has stated in the memo that the learned Arbitrator has a duty to protect the witness from being harassed or bullied during cross examination. The learned Arbitrator may ensure that the witness is treated fairly and courteously, in as much as a perusal of line of cross examination would disclose that the learned counsel for the respondent is exceeding the bounds of fairness. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 10.The petitioner has not raised any objection when C.W.1 was cross examined by the
Delhi District Court Shankar Roy vs Abhishek Roy Chaudhary And Anr on 30 July, 2025 IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)06 SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI CNR No. DLSE010076922023 CS(Comm) 700/2023 SHRI SHANKAR ROY (Carrying on business under the name and style of) Roy Trading International As its Sole Proprietor Having Office At: N.S. Road, Agartala, Dist. West Tripura, Mob. No. 943612151 .... Plaintiff VERSUS 1. SHRI ABHISHEK ROY CHAUDHARY S/o Sh. B. Roy Chaudhary (Carrying on business under the name and style of) Techsol Engineers As its Sole Proprietor Having Office At: 326B, 2nd Floor, Rajendra Tulsi Tower, G2 Alaknanda, New Delhi110019. Mob. No. 9811630666. 2. SHRI BRIJESH KUMAR SINGH (Carrying on business under the name and style of) B.M. Roofing Solution NEERA BHARIHOKE CS(COMM)700/253 SHANKAR ROY VS. ABHISHEK ROY CHAUDHARY PAGE NO. 1 OF 11 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.30 15:10:15 +0530 As its Sole Proprietor Having Office At: I38, Sector9, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Mob. No.9716641135. ...Defendants Date of institution of the case : 24.07.2023 Date on which order was reserved : 25.07.2025 Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 30.07.2025 JUDGMENT 1. By way of this judgment, I shall decide the suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,93,820/ along with cost, pendentlite and future interest. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS SET OUT IN PLAINT 2. Plaintiff is sole Proprietor of M/s Roy Trading International having office at N.S. Road, Agartala, Dist. West Tripura. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of "Galvolume corrugated Sheet". Defendant No. 1 represented to be carrying on business of sale of 'Galvolume Corrugated Sheets' under the name and style of M/s Techsol Engineers as its Sole Proprietor. 3. Shri Shankar Roy required to purchase 'Galvolume Corrugated Sheets'. The Plaintiff contacted Defendant No.1. He also represented to the Plaintiff that he as an experienced person in this trade and would be able to supply the requieite quantities of 'Galvolume Corrugated Sheets' to the Plaintiff. Shri Abhishek Roy however insisted that the Plaintiff should have to make advance payment in full for the goods to be purchased. NEERA BHARIHOKE CS(COMM)700/253 SHANKAR ROY VS. ABHISHEK ROY CHAUDHARY PAGE NO. 2 OF 11 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.07.30 15:10:24 +0530 4. Believing the representation of Shri Abhishek Roy, the Plaintiff placed a purchase order upon Defendant No.1 on 04.08.2021 by email for purchase of the following goods: 1. 20mm Galvolume Corrugated Sheet in first phase 35MT. 2. 25mm Galvolume Corrugated Sheet in second phase 35MT. 3. 30mm Galvolume Corrugated Sheet in second phase 35MT. 5. The goods were to be supplied at Agartala. The agreed price included the freight and delivery charges of the ordered goods at Agartala. Shri Abhishek Roy assured and undertook that the goods would be supplied at Agartala as per the time schedule as the full payment had been received by him. 6. Believing the assurances of Defendant No.1, the Plaintiff paid the following amounts to Defendant No.1 through NEFT/RTGS in the bank account of Defendant No.1: Sr. No. Amount Date 1 5,00,00
Delhi High Court M/S The Commerical Electric Works & Ors vs Sharda Gupta on 6 April, 2023 Neutral Citation Number: 2023: DHC:2386 $~ * + RC.REV. 529/2019 & CM APPL. 56322/2022 M/S THE COMMERICAL ELECTRIC WORKS & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Sachin Jain and Mr. Ajay Kumar, Agarwal, Advocates versus SHARDA GUPTA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. H.L. Narula, Advocate alongwith Respondent in person % Reserved on: 17.03.2023 Date of Decision: 06.04.2023 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA JUDGMENT MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J: 1. This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioners, tenants, assailing the eviction order dated 23.03.2019, passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi ('Trial Court'), in Eviction Petition No. E150/16 (New No. 15/17), whereby the application seeking leave to defend was dismissed and the eviction petition filed by the Respondent, landlady, under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('DRC Act'), was allowed. 2. The Respondent, landlady, is stated to be the owner of the entire property bearing No. 18141815, ward No. IV, Chandni Chowk, Delhi ('subject property') which comprises of a Ground Floor ('GF'), Mezzanine Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAHIMA SHARMA RC.REV. 529/2019 Page 1 of 16 Signing Date:06.04.2023 19:10:17 Neutral Citation Number: 2023: DHC:2386 Floor (also referred to as dochatti/loft), First Floor ('FF'), Second Floor ('SF') and Third Floor ('TF'). 3. The Respondent filed the eviction petition for recovery of the commercial premises being ground floor, mezzanine floor and third floor of property No. 18141815, ward No. IV, Chandni Chowk, Delhi ('tenanted premises') located in the subject property. 4. The eviction petition was filed by the landlady on the plea that she has a bona fide need for her grandson i.e., Mr. Kanishk Gupta, who has recently graduated and wants to establish, run and operate his own business or join the landlady in her existing business and expand the said business, from the tenanted premises. It was asserted that there is no other commercial property owned by the landlady. It was further asserted that the landlady is carrying on business of sale of women's wear from the FF and SF of the subject property; however, due to the dilapidated condition of the building and the narrow staircase leading to the upper floors, the customers are unwilling to reach the FF for shopping. 5. The eviction petition was resisted by the Petitioners herein, who sought leave to defend on several grounds including the assertion of the Respondent that she is the owner and landlady. However, before this Court, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has restricted his oral submissions to assail the findings with respect to bona fide need on the plea that FF and SF of the subject property are lying vacant and are therefore, available to the landlady for the alleged business of her grandson. 6. The Trial Court after considering the s
Delhi High Court Jsw Ispat Special Products Limited vs Bharat Petroresources Limited on 11 September, 2025 $~ * % Date of Decision: 11th September, 2025 + O.M.P. (COMM) 533/2024 & I.As. 47736/2024, 4327/2025, 4328/2025 and 8551/2025 JSW ISPAT SPECIAL PRODUCTS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Ms. Aarushi Tiku, Mr. Abhay Aghnihotri, Mr. Vikram Choudhary, Mr. Nilay Gupta, Mr. Shreedhar Kale and Mr. Sanjeevani Seshdari, Advocates. versus BHARAT PETRORESOURCES LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divyam Agarwal, Ms. Aditi Deshpande, Ms. Pallavi Kumar, Ms. Priya Chauhan and Ms. Jasleen Virk, Advocates. + OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 28/2025 & EX.APPL.(OS) 206/2025, 557/2025 and 565/2025 BHARAT PETRORESOURCES LIMITED .....Decree Holder Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divyam Agarwal, Ms. Aditi Deshpande, Ms. Pallavi Kumar, Ms. Priya Chauhan and Ms. Jasleen Virk, Advocates. versus JSW STEEL LIMITED EARLIER JSW ISPAT SPECIAL PRODUCTS LIMITED .....Judgement Debtor Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Ms. Aarushi Tiku, Mr. Abhay Aghnihotri, Mr. Vikram O.M.P. (COMM) 533/2024 and connected matter Page 1 of 43 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:15.09.2025 10:25:09 Choudhary, Mr. Nilay Gupta, Mr. Shreedhar Kale and Mr. Sanjeevani Seshdari, Advocates. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH JUDGEMENT JYOTI SINGH, J. O.M.P. (COMM) 533/2024 1. This petition is filed by the Petitioner/JSW Ispat Special Products Limited (now known as JSW Steel Limited) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('1996 Act') challenging an arbitral award dated 21.08.2024, passed by the threemember Arbitral Tribunal ('Tribunal'). 2. Petitioner, earlier known as Monnet Ispat & Energy Limited ('MIEL') was admitted to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC') on 18.07.2017 by NCLT, Mumbai and Interim Resolution Professional ('IRP') was appointed. On 05.01.2018, Respondent filed its proof of claims under FormB of Regulation 7 of the Insolvency Resolution and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2017 ('CIRP Regulations') under the head of 'Operational Creditor' as follows: i. Rs.9,58,88,886/ payable till 18.07.2017 and; ii. Rs.9,92,86,982/ towards estimated share of expenditure post 18.07.2017. 3. Case of the Petitioner as per the averments in the petition is: (a). On 26.02.2018, Cash Call No. 20 was issued by the Respondent hi