abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Delhi High Court State vs Naresh Yadav on 15 February, 2024 $~ * % Reserved on: February 08, 2024 Decided on: February 15, 2024 + CRL.REV.P. 94/2017 & CM APPL. 1543/2017 STATE ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State with SI Manoj Kumar, Crime Branch, Chanakyapuri. V NARESH YADAV ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Tanmay Nagar, Advocate. CORAM HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN JUDGMENT CM APPL. 1543/2017 (condonation of delay) 1. The present application is filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 31 days in filing the present revision petition. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 31 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:19.02.2024 CRL.REV.P. 94/2017 Page 1 11:45:33 3. The application stands disposed of. CRL.REV.P. 94/2017 1. The present revision petition is filed under sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") read with section 482 of the Code to impugn the order dated 17.09.2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned order") passed by the court of Sh. Ramesh KumarII, ASJ/SFTC2, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in case bearing no.28703/2016 arising out of FIR bearing no.03/2010 dated 04.01.2010 registered under sections 498A/495 IPC at P.S. Darya Ganj whereby the respondent was discharged for the offence punishable under section 376 IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that FIR bearing no. 03/2010 was got registered under sections 498A/495 IPC at P.S. Darya Ganj on the basis of the complaint made by „R‟ (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") wherein she alleged that her marriage was solemnized with Naresh Yadav s/o Sh. Lakhmi Chand (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") in May 2007 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Sometime after the marriage, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:19.02.2024 CRL.REV.P. 94/2017 Page 2 11:45:33 respondent and his family members started to harass the complainant mentally and physically and demanded dowry. The complainant was thrown out of the matrimonial home and was forced to live with her parents. The complainant was even threatened by the respondent and his cousin brother namely Naresh Yadav r/o New Ashok Nagar, Delhi to give dowry i.e. a car and cash amount of Rs.1,00,000/ when staying with her parents but her poor parents were not in a position to fulfil these demands. The respondent asked her to come near Golcha Cinema Hall, Darya Ganj. The complainant went to Golcha Cinema Hall and found that the respondent and his cousin brother namely Naresh Yadav who was then posted as Head Constable in Delhi
Chattisgarh High Court Chhattisgarh Pathya Pustak Nigam vs M/S Chhattisgarh Packagers Pvt Ltd on 21 August, 2025 1/3 SMT NIRMALA RAO HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 756 of 2025 CHHATTISGARH TEXT BOOK CORPORATION versus M/S CHHATTISGARH PACKAGERS PVT LTD WP227/514/2025 Order Sheet 21/08/2025 Shri Anand Shukla and Shri Arijit Tiwari, Advocates for the respective petitioners. Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate for the respondents. Shri Shukla, Advocate in WP(227) No.514 of 2025 would submit that the learned Executing CourtcumThird District Judge, Raipur in Execution Case No.179 of 2017 dated 24.3.2025, directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs,.96,73,195/ by misinterpreting the award passed by the Facilitation Council. 2/3 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the Facilitation Council has clarified that the interest component would be calculated in accordance with the provisions of Sections 16 & 17 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006 (for short 'MSME Act') and that the same calculation was presented before the learned Executing Court, which was accepted. Heard. A perusal of the award would show that the Facilitation Council in the concluding paragraph, assessed the total amount of award at Rs.11,93,000/ and accordingly imposed the interest component according to the provisions of Sections 16 & 17 of the MSME Act. The final assessed amount of the award was Rs.34,07,841/, which was payable within a period of 30 days, failing which the amount shall carry interest till the date of its realization. However, the Facilitation Council did not clarified the interest rate in the concluding paragraph. Considering the submissions made by respective Advocates and the award passed by the Arbitrator, a strong case is made out for grant of stay. Therefore, the effect and operation of the order dated 24.3.2025 shall be stayed till the next date of hearing. Shri Arjit Tiwari, Advocate in WP(227) No.756 of 2025 would submit that the learned Executing Court has frozen the bank account of the petitioner, making it very difficult for the petitioner to make payment of salary or meet 3/3 expenses of the Corporation in such circumstances. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the order has been passed according to the provisions of Section 16 of the MSME Act. Considering the fact that the Facilitation Council did not clarify the interest rate in the concluding paragraph of the award, and that the calculation and the order passed on 24.3.2025 have already been stayed, therefore, the effect and operation of the order dated 11.6.2025 is hereby stayed. Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file reply. Call both the matters on 7.10.2025 for final disposal at motion stage. SD/ (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi
Delhi High Court Government Of Madhya Pradesh ... vs Power Finance Corporation Ltd on 25 February, 2025 $~27 * % Date of Decision : 25.02.2025 + W.P.(C) 2383/2025 & CM APPL. 11272/2025 GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY .....Petitioner Through: Mr Nidesh Gupta, Sr Advocate with Mr Aashish Anand Berenard, Mr Vikram Dwivedi and Mr Paramhans Sahani, Advocates. versus POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr Deepak Khurana, Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (ORAL) 1. Issue notice. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice. 3. With the consent of the learned counsels for parties, the petition is taken up for hearing. 4. The petitioner (Government of State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Energy) has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAM W.P. (C) 2383/2025 Page 1 of 12 KUMAR Signing Date:04.03.2025 15:03:55 dated 10.11.2022 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the learned Debts Recovery TribunalIII, Delhi (hereafter the DRT) whereby the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement (hereafter the WS) to the Original Application (TA No.29/2022) captioned Power Finance Corporation Limited v. Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Energy filed before the learned DRT, was rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation. 5. The petitioner also impugns an order dated 15.04.2024 (hereafter the recall order) whereby the application of the petitioner for recalling of the impugned order was summarily rejected. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had appealed before the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (hereafter the DRAT), however it is stated that the appeal (Misc Appeal No.179/2024 captioned Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Energy v. Power Finance Corporation Limited) was listed before the learned Tribunal on more than fourteen occasions in the recent past but was not taken up for hearing. It has been repeatedly adjourned. 7. In the aforesaid context, the petitioner also prays in the alternative that the directions be issued to the learned Tribunal to decide the aforesaid appeal in a time bound manner. 8. We do not consider it apposite to issue any directions to the learned Tribunal in this regard. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the present case and considering the issue involved is in narrow compass, we Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAM W.P. (C) 2383/2025 Page 2 of 12 KUMAR Signing Date:04.03.2025 15:03:55 consider it apposite to decide the dispute on merits. 9. The learned DRT has passed the impugned order on the ground that the WS was not filed by the petitioner within the stipulated period of thirty days and the delay in filing such WS exceeds the further period of fifteen days that could be condoned by the learned DRT. Additionally, the learned DRT also held that the petitioner had not furnished sufficient cause for justifying the delay in filing the WS.
Delhi High Court Orders Birla Cable Limited vs Bharat Broadband Network Limited on 2 March, 2021 $~17 * + ARB.P. 548/2020 BIRLA CABLE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through Mr Narender M. Sharma, Advocate. versus BHARAT BROADBAND NETWORK LIMITED ..... Respondent Through Mr Nikhilesh Krishnan, Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 02.03.2021 [Hearing held through videoconferencing] 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the 'A&C Act'), inter alia, praying that an Arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 2. The respondent (hereafter 'BBNL') had floated a tender on 03.04.2013 for supply of 24 Fibre Metal free Optical Fibre Cable with double Sheath (G.652D) and accessories. The Tender Conditions included an Arbitration Clause. 3. The petitioner submitted its bid pursuant to the aforesaid invitation to tender. 4. The petitioner's bid for 'Package B' was accepted on 10.02.2014. BBNL issued an Advance Purchase Order (APO) on the said date. After the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL petitioner had complied with the conditions mentioned in the APO, BBNL issued a Purchase Order (PO) for 'Package B' on 28.03.2014. 5. According to the petitioner, there was a change in classification of the product in question resulting in the change in the Excise Duty as factored by BBNL. It had proceeded on the basis that the product in question attracted Excise Duty of 10.30% instead of 12.36%. The petitioner claims that it forwarded a certificate from the concerned authorities certifying the applicable rate of Excise Duty, Educational Cess and Higher Education Cess. 6. The petitioner claims that apart from the Purchase Order for 'Package B' the petitioner was also issued other Purchase Order for other Packages. 7. The petitioner claims that the petitioner had demanded the differential amount which according to the petitioner was payable to it. The said demand was not met and consequently on 27.07.2020 the petitioner issued a notice invoking the Arbitration Clause. 8. Admittedly, the Arbitration Clause is set out in the General Conditions of the Contract. The said clause is set out below: "III.20. ARBITRATION III.20.1. In the event of any question, dispute or difference arising under this agreement or in connection therewith (except as to the matters, the decision to which is specifically provided under this agreement), the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the CMD, BBNL or in case his designation is changed or his office is abolished, then in such cases to the sole arbitration of the officer for the time being entrusted (whether in addition to his own duties or otherwise) with the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL functions of the CMD, BBNL or by whatever designation such an officer may be called (hereinafter referred to as the said
Delhi High Court Indian Telecom Service Association & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 April, 2012 * % Judgment reserved on: 10.4.2012 Judgment pronounced on: 17.4.2012 + W.P.(C) 2251522518/2005 & CM No.1469214694/2005, 6787/2006, 7955/2006, 15087/2008 & 1536/2012 Indian Telecom Service Association & Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2221722257/2005 & CMs No.14646/2005, 14648/2005 Arun Gupta And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2225822463/2005 & CMs No.14652/2005 & 14655/2005 Mukesh Kumar Chauhan And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 22783/2005 S.K.Talware ... Petitioner versus Union of India ... Respondents W.P(C) 22515/2005 Page 1 of 26 + W.P.(C) 2278422788/2005 & CM No.16074/2005 Pushpender Singh And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2278922847/2005 & CMs No.12817/2006, 13732/2006 & 14503/2006 Akhilesh Trivedi ... Petitioners versus Union of India ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 23093/2005 Rakesh Kumar Tripathi ... Petitioner versus Union of India ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2312423126/2005 Awadhesh K. Singh And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents W.P(C) 22515/2005 Page 2 of 26 + W.P.(C) 23655/2005 Gajender Kumar Yadav ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 1238012382/2006 & CMs No.9467/2006, 11074/2008 & 14543/2008 MTNL Executive Welfare Association ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Another ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 17618/2006 & CMs No. 1458814589/2006 & 170/2007 A.K.Sharma ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 3414/2007 & CM No.63966397/2007 Vinay Saran ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. VSR Krishna and Ms. Swati Sharma in WP(C) 2221522257/2005 Mr. Yasoban Das, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K.Srivastava, Mr. Ashish W.P(C) 22515/2005 Page 3 of 26 Sindhu and Mr. Arvind Tiwari in WP(C) 22789/2005 Mr. A.K.Srivastava and Mr. Ashish Sindhu in WP(C) 22783/2005, 22784/2005, 22789/2005, 23093/2005, 23124/2005 & 23655/2005 For Respondent : Mr. A.S.Chandhiok, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. B.V.Niren, Mr Prasouk Jain, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma & Mr. Pratap for UoI Mr. Ravi Sikri with Mr. Vaibhav Kalra for MTNL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This batch of writ petitions are directed against the orders dated 21.10.2005 and 31.10.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in OA No. 1963/2005 and other connected OAs. 2. Pursuant to its decision t
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh M/S Vision Steel Ltd., Chandigarh vs Dcit, Cc1, Chandigarh on 19 June, 2023 आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ "ए" , च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH "A", CHANDIGARH ी आकाश द प जैन, उपा य एवं ी #व$म &संह यादव, लेखा सद+य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 36/Chd/ 2019 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 200910 The DCIT बनाम M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. Central CircleI, Chandigarh 3 Industrial Area, Phase I Chandigarh थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACB9760D अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 467 to 471/Chd/ 2019 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 201011 to 201415 M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. बनाम The DCIT 3 Industrial Area, Phase I Central CircleI, Chandigarh Chandigarh थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACB9760D अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent नधा रती क! ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA राज व क! ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT, DR आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 405 to 409/Chd/ 2019 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 201011 to 201415 The DCIT, बनाम M/s Vision Steel Ltd. CC1, Chandigarh 3 Industrial Area, Phase I Chandigarh थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCV8232B अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent Cross Objection No. 8 to 12/Chd/2021 In (आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 405 to 409/Chd/ 2019) नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 201011 to 201415 M/s Vision Steel Ltd. बनाम The DCIT, 3 Industrial Area, Phase I CC1, Chandigarh Chandigarh थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCV8232B अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent 2 नधा रती क! ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA राज व क! ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT, DR आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 410 to 414/Chd/ 2019 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 201011 to 201415 The DCIT, बनाम M/s Marsh Steel Ltd. CC1, Sector 17, Chandigarh 3 Industrial Area1 Chandigarh थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADCM7569E अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent Cross Objection No. 13 to 17/Chd/2021 In (आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 410 to 414/Chd/ 2019) नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 201011 to 201415 M/s Marsh Steel Ltd. बनाम The DCIT, 3 Industrial Area1 CC1, Sector 17, Chandigarh Chandigarh थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADCM7569E अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent नधा रती क! ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA राज व क! ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT, DR आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 415 to 419/Chd/ 2019 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 201011 to 201415 The DCIT, बनाम M/s Jasmine Steel Trading Ltd. CC1, Chandigarh 3, Industrial Area, Phase1 Chandigarh थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCJ2348C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent Cross Objection No. 18 to 22/Chd/2021 In (आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 415 to 419/Chd/ 2019) नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 201011 to 201415 M/s Jasmine Steel Trading Ltd. बनाम The DCIT, 3, Industrial Area, Phase1 CC1, Chandigarh Chandigarh थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCJ2348C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent 3 नधा रती क! ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA राज व क! ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri V
Allahabad High Court Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi And Another vs State Of U.P. And 11 Others on 20 April, 2023 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. 40 Case : WRIT C No. 4330 of 2021 Petitioner : Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi And Another Respondent : State Of U.P. And 11 Others Counsel for Petitioner : Abhishek Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Respondent : C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. Present writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs: "(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pass an appropriate order in regard to pay the balance amount of advertisement published in the Daily Hindi News Paper namely Vindhya Leader by the Village Panchayats of Block Robertsganj, Chatra, Nagwa, Ghorawal, Chopan, Dhudhi, Myorpur and Babhni of District Sonebhadra publishing the Tender notice of different Economic Development & Social Justice Schemes during the month of April, May and June 2019 in accordance with Government Order No.562/UNNIS220071007/74 (TC) dated 4.7.2007 issued by Principal Secretary U.P. government Suchna Anubhag2. (ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pass an appropriate order on the representations dated 26.6.2020, 2.7.2020 and 20.12.2020 (Annexure No.8 & 9) pending before the District Panchayat Raj Officer and District Magistrate Sonebhadra of the petitioner in regard to pay balance/ pending amount in respect of advertisement published in the Hindi Daily News Paper namely Vindhya Leader and further direct them to pass a reasoned and speaking order within the stipulated time as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper." Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and with the consent, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sonebhadra to look into, examine and redress the grievance of the petitioners in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date : 20.4.2023 SP/
Accused : Sri.Omkar Veershetty Phulari , Major, 2 C.C. 2776 / 2021 Son of not know to the complainant, Proprietor of M/s. Sri Sai Sarees, Opp. Katakkam Jewellers, Pratibha Tower, Old Bus Stand Road, Bidar 585 401 (Karanataka) { By Sri.B M Veerabhadregowda Advocate } Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act., Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty Final Order : Accused is convicted Date of Order : 16032024. JUDGMENT The present complaint is filed through GPA holder under section 200 of code of criminal procedure against the accused seeking to punish him for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short referred as "N.I. Act"). 3 C.C. 2776 / 2021 02. The facts of complaint is summarized as under. It is alleged that, the GPA holder is having knowledge about the transaction of the case. The accused is retail dealer in textile goods and doing his business in the name of M/s.Sri Sai Sarees at Bidar and had personally purchased textile gods from the complainant under invoice No.11905, 11906 dated 19.04.2019 and invoice No. 12117 dated 04.06.2019 for a total sum of Rs. 1,61,206/ on 30 days credit basis and the said textile goods were supplied to the accused as per his request through a common carrier at Bengaluru. After the purchase of said textile goods the accused made payment of Rs,41,260/ by way of cash. Still he has found to be due to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,20,000/ towards principal as per the statement of account of the accused maintained by the complainant. Since it is commercial transaction the accused is liable to pay 24% interest as per trade usage, customs of the business which amount to Rs.48,000/. It is further alleged that, towards payment of aforesaid due amount the accused has issued three 4 C.C. 2776 / 2021 cheques for the part payment of the due amount cheque bearing No. 000851 dated 23.11.2020, No. 000852 dated 01.12.2020, No.000853 dated 20.12.2020 for Rs.40,000/ each and all the cheques were drawn on Bank of Baroda, Bidar Branch. On 29.12.2020 the complainant has presented all the cheques with his banker for encashment but they returned unpaid due to "Funds Insufficient" as per return memo. Thereafter on 09.01.2021 the demand notice was issued to the accused by RPAD which was served upon him on 18.01.2021 despite of service of the said notice the accused failed to make the payment of cheque amount. Accordingly, It is sought to convict the accused under section 138 of NI Act and to award compensation to him as per Section 357 of Cr.P.C. 03. On presentation of the complaint this court verified all complaint averments and the material documents and after having made out prime facie case the cognizance for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act has been taken. As per the verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex court in 5 C.C. 2776 / 2021 the case of Indian Bank Association and others V/s Union of India and others, the sworn statement of the complainant has been recorded along with marking material documents at Ex.P1 to P14, having made out prima facie case, the