abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Amit Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate along with Shri Lokendra Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Manoj Munshi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. WITH WRIT APPEAL No. 477 of 2024 GANNON DUNKERLEY AND CO. LIMITED Versus MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Vivek Dalal learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Manoj Munshi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia Since the controversy involved in these cases is identical in Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 06092024 13:52:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHCIND:25449 2 WA4782024 & WA477/2024 nature, therefore, with the joint request of the parties, these appeals are finally heard and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of Writ Appeal No.478 of 2024 are being taken for disposal of both these writ appeals. 02. Appellant/petitioner has filed this writ appeal challenging the order dated 09.01.2024, whereby the Writ Court has dismissed the Writ Petition No.30511 of 2023. 03. The writ petitioner/appellant is a Public Limited Company registered under the Companies Act engaged in the business of civil construction, mechanical and electrical work in all the major industries, building sector, infrastructure, sector in highways, railways, bridges/flyovers, water treatment etc. 04. The petitioner/appellant was awarded the work of construction of formation, bridges, buildings, two level crossings on existing tracks, supply of ballast along with associated signaling and general electrical works for the 3rd BG Railway Line between Barkheda (excluding) and Budhni (excluding) stations on Bhopal Itarsi section in Bhopal Division of West Central Railway by Rail Vikas Nigam Limited. The work order for execution of the aforesaid construction was issued on 11.07.2018. Respondent No.2 is also a construction company engaged in the erection of Preengineered buildings, civil construction, false ceilings, fireproofing, hot and cold insulation and roads. Respondent No.2, is a registered enterprise under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "MSME Act") 05. The petitioner/ appellant awarded a subcontract to responde
Delhi High Court Manoj Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 March, 2019 $~70 to 73 * + W.P.(C) 868/2018 MANOJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Ms.Nandadevi Deka, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC for UOI with W/C A.K.Chauhan with JWO S.M.Pal, Air Force. Mr.Jagat Arora with Ms.Ritu Arora & Mr.Murad Khan, Advocates for R3/IBPS. + W.P.(C) 3637/2018 & CM APPL. 14443/2018 CPL RAHUL KUMAR SANTOSHI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Manoj Gupta, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .... Respondents Through: Mr.Jasmeet Singh, CGSC with Mr.Aditya Madaan & Mr.Devank Maheshwari, Advocates for UOI/R1 to R3. + W.P.(C) 6300/2018 & CM APPL. 24243/2018 PRAKASH KATIYAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate. versus W.P.(C) Nos. 868,3637, 6300 & 8189 of 2018 page 1 of 24 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC for UOI with W/C A.K.Chauhan with JWO S.M.Pal, Air Force. Ms.Praveena Gautam with Mr.Jitesh P.Gupta, Mr.Pawan Shukla & Mr.Raja Ram, Advocates for R5 & R6/Bank of Baroda. + W.P.(C) 8189/2018 CPL NAKUL CHANDRA BEHERA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Manoj Gupta, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Dev P.Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr.Jatin Teotia, Advocate for UOI/R1 to R3. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA ORDER % 25.03.2019 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: 1. These are four petitions which arise under similar set of facts and seek almost identical reliefs. They are accordingly being disposed of by this common order. 2. All the four Petitioners have been declined a No Objection Certificate („NOC‟) by the Indian Air Force (represented by Respondent No.2) for W.P.(C) Nos. 868,3637, 6300 & 8189 of 2018 page 2 of 24 taking up employment with Public Sector Undertakings („PSUs‟). WP (C) 868 of 2018 3. The facts in WP (C) 868 of 2018 are that the Petitioner, Corporal Manoj Kumar was enrolled in the services of Respondent No.2 on 31 st March 2010 as an Airman. In terms of AFO No. 04 of 2012 issued by Respondent No.2, an Airman who has completed seven years' service can apply for civil posts having a maximum of pay scale not less than Rs. 39,100/ i.e. equal in to a group „A‟ Government post. On 14th August 2017, a notification was issued by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection („IBPS‟) for the post of Probationary Officer (Group „A‟) in the said institute which prepares candidates for appearing in the bank probationary exams. 4. In terms of AFO No. 04 of 2012, the Petitioner applied online for permission to apply for the said job. His attempts at filing up the form online on 18th August 2017 failed since the web site would not accept applications for a post having a pay scale of less than Rs.56,100/. The Petitioner states that on same day he forwarded an online query seeking a clarification with respect to the nonacceptance of his application. The Petitioner received a reply from the AFRO Wing as under: "Owing to implementation of 7th CPC, the pay scale criterion has been revised for grant of permission to appear by
Special Range4, Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi B91, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase1, New Delhi PAN :AAACH3005M (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No. 79/Del/2019 [In ITA No.1124/Del/2018] Assessment Year: 200405 With C.O. No. 80/Del/2019 [In ITA No.1125/Del/2018] Assessment Year: 200506 Hindustan Coca Cola Vs. Addl. CIT, Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Special Range4, B91, Mayapuri Industrial New Delhi Area, Phase1, New Delhi PAN :AAACH3005M (Appellant) (Respondent) With ITA Nos.3448 & 3449/Del/2015 Assessment Years: 200809 & 200910 Hindustan Coca Cola Vs. DCIT, Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Circle11(2), Orchid Centre, 3 Floor, DLF rd New Delhi Golf Course Road, Sector53, Gurgaon PAN :AAACH3005M (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.1124 & 1125/Del/2018; C.O. Nos.79 & 80/Del/2019; ITA Nos.3448 & 3449/Del/2015; ITA Nos. 4588 & 4589/Del/2015 With ITA Nos.4588 & 4589/Del/2015 Assessment Years: 200809 & 200910 DCIT, Vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Circle11(2), Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 13, Abdul Fazal Road, Bengali Market, New Delhi PAN :AAACH3005M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Neeraj Jain, Advocate Sh. Aditya Vohra, Advocate Mr. Arpit Goyal, CA Respondent by Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT (DR) Date of hearing 10.05.2023 Date of pronouncement 07.06.2023 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: Captioned appeals and cross objections by the assessee and Revenue relate to the same assessee and against various orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), pertaining to assessment years 200405, 200506, 200809 and 200910. ITA No. 1124/Del/2018 for AY: 200405 (Revenue's Appeal) & C.O. No. 79/Del/2019 ITA No. 1125/Del/2018 for AY: 200506 (Revenue's Appeal) & C.O. No. 80/Del/2019 2|Page ITA Nos.1124 & 1125/Del/2018; C.O. Nos.79 & 80/Del/2019; ITA Nos.3448 & 3449/Del/2015; ITA Nos. 4588 & 4589/Del/2015 2. These appeals by the Revenue and cross objections by the assessee arise out of two separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Incometax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') 3. Briefly the facts, more or less common in both the assessment years are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity engaged in the business of manufacture and trading of non alcoholic beverages. For the assessment years under dispute, the assessee had filed its return of income in regular course declaring loss. The returns of income filed by the assessee were subjected to scrutiny and in course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer called for various information and details and ultimately completed the assessments under section 143(3) of the Act making various additions/disallowances. Contesting the additions/disallowances the assessee preferred appeals before learned first appellate authority. While deciding the appeals, learned Commissioner (Appeals) granted
D2H Green Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent Mr. Rahul Gupta i/b. Amir Arsiwala, Advocate for Petitioner. DATE : JULY 28, 2025 Oral Judgement: 1. By an Order dated June 9, 2025, it was made clear that since the challenge is to an Arbitral Award passed under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ( "MSMED Act"), it is a statutory precondition under Section 19 of the MSMED Act, that no Court shall entertain any challenge to such award unless a deposit of 75% of the amount awarded is made. Therefore, it was made clear that if such deposit was made by June 16, 2025, the Petitioner would be entitled to pursue the matter further. 2. On June 23, 2025, advocates for the Petitioner submitted that the deposit had not been made and sought further extension of time. Page 1 of 3 JULY 28, 2025 Aarti Palkar ::: Uploaded on 06/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on 08/08/2025 22:30:27 ::: 33.CARBP.433.2025.doc An extension was granted until July 21, 2025 with interest as awarded having to be computed until that date. 3. Today, when the matter is called out, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he still does not have instructions on the deposit having been made. Since more than one month has been given for meeting the precondition for this Court to entertain the challenge to arbitral award and since such deposit has not been made at all, this Court is constrained not to entertain the challenge filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( "the Act") to the arbitral award passed under MSMED Act. 4. Section 19 of the MSMED Act would bear reproduction: 19. Application for setting aside decree, award or order. No application for setting aside any decree, award or other order made either by the Council itself or by any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services to which a reference is made by the Council, shall be entertained by any court unless the appellant (not being a supplier) has deposited with it seventyfive per cent of the amount in terms of the decree, award or, as the case may be, the other order in the manner directed by such court: Provided that pending disposal of the application to set aside the decree, award or order, the court shall order that such percentage of the amount deposited shall be paid to the supplier, as it considers reasonable under the circumstances of the case subject to such conditions as it deems necessary to impose. [Emphasis Supplied] Page 2 of 3 JULY 28, 2025 Aarti Palkar ::: Uploaded on 06/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on 08/08/2025 22:30:27 ::: 33.CARBP.433.2025.doc 5. Under the MSMED Act, the term "supplier" is defined in Section 2(n) of the MSMED Act to essentially mean an enterprise that is a micro or small enterprise. This precondition is a statutory protection in the form of an economic disincentive to lightly challenge arbitral awards made under that legislation. 6. Since the deposit has not been made, the Petition is required to be dismissed as this Court is required not to entertain such a challenge in view of the statutory duty
Delhi High Court Manjeet Plastic Industries & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 6 May, 2025 * % Judgment reserved on: 25.04.2025 Judgment delivered on: 06.05.2025 + W.P.(C) 2010/2025 & CM APPL Nos.946971/2025 MANJEET PLASTIC INDUSTRIES & ANR ...Petitioners Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Mr. Shashank Khurana, Ms. Sonali Gaur and Mr. Chaitanya, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ....Respondents Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG, Mr. Sanat Kumar, Senior Advocate, Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate, Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC, Mr. Nishant Gautam, CGSC, Ms. Rukmini Bobde, CGSC with Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Ms. Shreya Jetly, Mr. Tushar Jain, Mr. Vinayak Aren and Ms. Kanika Gupta, Advocates with Mr. Rudra Paliwal and Mr. Amit Acharya, GP for UoI/NSIC. Mr. Milind Ramteka, Director, PM Vishwakarna, Ministry of MSMEs, GOI. Mr Kartikeya Tanton, Director, Planning and Marketing, NSIC. Mr. Rajesh Jain, Chief General Manager, NSIC. + W.P.(C) 1981/2025, CM APPL. 927779/2025 MANJEET PLASTIC INDUSTRIES & ANR ...Petitioners Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2010/2025 & W.P.(C) 1981/2025 Page 1 of 29 By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Date:07.05.2025 15:31:11 Through: Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Mr. Shashank Khurana, Ms. Sonali Gaur and Mr. Chaitanya Sharma, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ....Respondents Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG, Mr. Sanat Kumar, Senior Advocate, Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Senior Advocate, Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC, Mr. Nishant Gautam, CGSC, Ms. Rukmini Bobde, CGSC with Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Ms. Shreya Jetly, Mr. Tushar Jain, Mr. Vinayak Aren and Ms. Kanika Gupta, Advocates with Mr. Rudra Paliwal and Mr. Amit Acharya, GP for UoI/NSIC. Mr.
Jaydeep Developers & Ors., ...Respondents/ Org. Defendants WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2718 OF 2020 IN INTERIM APPLICATION NO.308 OF 2019 IN SUIT NO.191 OF 2023 Jaydeep Developers ...Applicant/ Org. Defendant No.1 Versus Lok Everest CoOp.Hsg. Soc. Ltd. ...Respondent/ Org. Plaintiff Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud a/w Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Ms. Ashwini Patil i/b Solicis Lex for the Plaintiff. Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Vishal Narichania, Mrs. Pallavi Kulkarni i/b Ms. Minal Parab a/w Mr. Manoj B., Mr. Shrinidhi Suryawanshi for Defendant No.1 in Suit and for Applicant in IA 2718/2020. Ms. Pooja Yadav i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi for Defendant No.2. Mr. G.S. Bhat for Applicant in IA 452/2022. 1 ::: Uploaded on 07/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on 08/11/2025 00:33:50 ::: ROIA 308.19 with IA 2718.20 in S 191.23.doc CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA, J. RESERVED ON : 27th JUNE, 2025. PRONOUNCED ON : 7th NOVEMBER, 2025. ORDER : 1. By this Interim Application, the Plaintiff/Applicant is seeking an order of injunction restraining the Defendant No.1 and / or their agents, servants and assigns from making any alterations and / or constructing new Building C5 or Wing C5 or undertaking any construction in the Larger Property. Further, consequential relief has been sought in addition to the primary relief. 2. The captioned Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff in which the present Interim Application has been taken out seeking to enforce its rights under Section 7(1)(ii), read with Sections 3(2)(c) and 4(1A)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 ("MOFA"). The Plaintiff is a society of flat purchasers occupying Building No.4, consisting of four Wings B1, B2, C1 and C2 that are connected to each other. The Plaintiff Society has 309 members. The case of the Plaintiff is that, Defendant No.1 Developer has exhausted the development potential of the land as disclosed to the 2 ::: Uploaded on 07/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on 08/11/2025 00:33:50 ::: ROIA 308.19 with IA 2718.20 in S 191.23.doc flat purchasers at the time of the execution of the flat purchase agreements, and in spite of which Defendant No. 1 is seeking to utilize more FSI on the subject plot on account of an increase in FSI due to a change in law, which the Plaintiff contends is contrary to MOFA. 3. A brief background of the facts is necessary: (i) The land of the Plaintiff Society is part of City Survey No. 661/1/1. The Developer had constructed two buildings on the said land viz. Buildings Nos. 4 and 5. An Agreement wa
M/s.Tata Motors Finance Ltd., ) a Company incorporated under Companies Act) 1956, having its Corporate office at Building A) 2nd Floor, Lodha 1 Think, Techno Campus, ) Off Pokhran Road 2, Thane (West), ) Thane 400 607. ) ..... Respondents ::: Downloaded on 04/03/2015 23:58:59 ::: Kvm 2/40 ARBP304.14 Mr.Rohan Cama, a/w. Mr.Sunil Chaturvedi for the Petitioner. Mr.Dinyar Madon, Senior Advocate, a/w.Mr.Kingshuk Banerjee, Mr.Yuvraj Choksy, i/b. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the Respondents. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. RESERVED ON : 18th FEBRUARY, 2015 PRONOUNCED ON : 4th MARCH, 2015 JUDGMENT : Admit. The respondents waive service. By consent of parties, matter is taken on board for final hearing. In view of the identical facts in all the eight petitions, by consent of parties all the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The petitioner in each of the petition aforesaid was the original respondent in the arbitration proceedings whereas the respondents herein were the original claimants. ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 304 OF 2014 3. I will first summarize the facts in Arbitration Petition No.304 of 2014 which is the main matter which has been argued by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short the said 'Arbitration Act'), the petitioner has impugned the arbtiral award dated 7th October, 2013 thereby allowing some of the claims made by the respondents. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under : 5. Sometime in the month of December 2009 the petitioner approached the respondents for a loan in the sum of Rs.19,64,000/for refinancing/purchasing the ::: Downloaded on 04/03/2015 23:58:59 ::: Kvm 3/40 ARBP304.14 vehicle. The respondents sanctioned the said loan and entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 30th December, 2009. The said loan amount with interest was repayable in the monthly installment of R
Delhi High Court Sterlite Power Transmission Limited vs M/S Epc Solutions Llp & Anr. on 5 July, 2023 $~ * Reserved on: 9th May, 2023 Date of decision: 5th July, 2023 + W.P.(C) 13758/2021 and CM APPL. 43444/2021 STERLITE POWER TRANSMISSION LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Khurana and Mr. Abhishek Bansal, Advocates (9811231287) versus M/S EPC SOLUTIONS LLP & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rohit Pandey, Mr. Varad Dwivedi and Mr. Vaibhav Maheshwari, Advs., for R1 (8447258935) Mr. Prakash Kumar Sinha, Advocate (8920451962) JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J. 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. This petition raises an important issue arising out of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter 'MSMED Act, 2006'). 3. The question that is to be determined is Whether the Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) can entertain references to arbitration from Medium Enterprises, in addition to those made by Micro or Small Enterprises under the MSMED Act, 2006? Brief Facts 4. The Petitioner Sterlite Power Transmission Limited seeks quashing/ setting aside of the impugned reference order dated 27th October, 2021 passed by Respondent No.2 SubDivisional Magistrate (East), Government of NCT of Delhi, acting as Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council under the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 13758/2021 Page 1 of 20 By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.07.2023 18:33:32 MSMED Act, 2006 (hereinafter, 'MSEFC'). By the impugned reference order the reference filed by the Respondent No. 1 M/s EPC Solutions LLP under Section 18 of MSMED Act, 2006 has been forwarded to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). 5. An agreement dated 15th September, 2017 was entered into by the Petitioner with Respondent No. 1 for providing vacuum pumps and engineers for PMC of 400kv Transmission Line on a rental basis on the project site in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The effective date of the agreement was 5th September, 2017. As per the work order, the deployment of the engineer for PMC of GIS substation was for 90 days, deployment of the engineer for PMC of 400kV line was for 60 days and the supply for the vacuum pumps was for a period of 90 days from the effective date. Thus, as per the Petitioner the said agreement came to an end in November, 2017. It is stated by the Petitioner that the original value of the vacuum pumps is Rs. 9,41,084/. 6. The case of the Petitioner is that Respondent No.1 failed to lift the vacuum pumps from the project site due to which disputes arose between the parties in respect of return of the said vacuum pumps. In view of the same, Respondent No.1 filed reference application before the MSEFC raising a claim of Rs. 20,27,31,392/. Respondent No.1 also filed its Udhyam Registration certificate along with the reference application. The same has been placed on record and shows the Respondent No.1's registration under the MSMED Act, 2006 as a medium enterprise. The date of fil
1.The Chariperson, MSE Facilitation Council Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce, Guindu, Chennai600032. 2.M/s.Jayam Paper Chemicals, No.66, Bazaar Street, Velayuthapuram Palayam, Karur07. ... Respondents [R1 Cause title was suo motu amended vide Court order dated 20.02.2023] 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. (MD) No. 18113 of 2022 PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records, pertaining to the MSEFC/CBER/86/2021, dated 20.01.2022, impugned order, passed by the first respondent and quash the same as void and illegal and thereby direct the first respondent to make an enquiry afresh, by invoking Section 18 and 19 of the Micor, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act2006, by referring this matter to the institution or centre providing Alternate Dispute Resolution Service or under the provision of Section 65 to 81 of hte Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) by following C.P.C., Cr.P.C., Evidence Act etc, in the light of the investigation made by the District Crime Branch Tirunelveli, along with material evidences available. For Petitioner : Mr. F.X.Eugene For R1 : Mr. D.Gandhiraj Special Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.B.Charmurugan ORDER Heard Mr. F.X.Eugene, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. D.Gandhiraj, Learned Special Government Pleader for the First Respondent and Mr. B.Charmurugan, Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. (MD) No. 18113 of 2022 2. The Second Respondent had made a claim in Case No. MSEFC/CBER/86/2021 before the First Respondent under Section 18(1) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MSMED Act' for short), claiming payment of Rs. 1,36,39,326/ from the Petitioner towards remaining amount due for goods supplied with interest calculated in terms of that Act, in which an order dated 20.01.2022 was passed holding that the Petitioner was liable to pay the principal sum of Rs. 1,36,39,326/ together with compounded interest with monthly rests at three times of the Bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India as stipulated in Sections 15 and 16 of the MSMED Act, 2006 from the appointed due dates respectively till payment, which is assailed in this Writ Petition. 3. In response to the contentions raised by the Second Respondent that if the Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, he has to only resort to filing of an