abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Madras High Court M/S. Apex Coco And Solar Energy Limited vs Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation ... on 17 November, 2023 W.P. No. 23469 of 2023 DATED : 17.11.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU W.P. No. 23469 of 2023 and W.M.P. No. 22986 of 2023 M/s. Apex Coco and Solar Energy Limited Represented by its Director S.F.No.70/1, Devanallur Chellampayam Post Dharapuram Taluk Tirupur – 638 672. … Petitioner vs 1. Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council Coimbatore Region Tamil Nadu. 2. M/s. T&I Projects Limited S.F. Nos. 8 & 15, Seerapalayam Village Bodipalayam Post, Madukarai Taluk Coimbatore – 641 105. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records bearing MSEFC/CBER/97/2021, order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the First Respondent, and quash the same. For Petitioner : Ms. Vandana For M/s. Surana & Surana For Respondents : Mr. S.J.Mohamed Sathik, GA (R1) Mr. K.G.Vasudevan (R2) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/18 W.P. No. 23469 of 2023 ORDER Heard Ms. P.R.Vandana, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.J.Mohamed Sathik, Learned Government Advocate, who takes notice for the First Respondent, and Mr. K.G.Vasudevan, Learned Counsel, who takes notice for the Second Respondent, and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2. The Second Respondent made a claim in Case No. MSEFC/ CBER/97/2021 before the First Respondent under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MSMED Act' for short), for payment of Rs. 42,83,580/ from the Petitioner towards the balance amount due for the goods supplied with interest calculated in terms of that Act, in which an order dated 24.11.2022 was passed holding that the Petitioner was liable to pay the sum of Rs. 42,83,580/ together with compounded interest with monthly rests at three times of the Bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India as stipulated in MSMED Act from the invoices dated from 21.08.2018 to 25.12.2018 till the date of realization of dues, which is assailed in this Writ Petition. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/18 W.P. No. 23469 of 2023 3. Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent has raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition by contending that if the Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, it has only to resort to filing of an application under Section 34 read with Section 2(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the A & C Act' for short), to have it set aside as an arbitral award, and that in any event, a Writ Petition to set aside an arbitral award cannot be prosecuted without complying with the requirement of predeposit of 75% of the amount involved in terms of Section 19 of the MSMED Act. 4. In response, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that when the First Respondent has not conducted the arbitral procedure as required
Delhi High Court Vishwajeet Singh And Ors vs Sh Subhasish Panda on 23 December, 2024 $~ * + CONT.CAS(C) 647/2024 VISHWAJEET SINGH AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Shreya Garg, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Ms. Suman Gupta and Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocates (M:9811129304) versus SH SUBHASISH PANDA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Deepika V. Marwaha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Standing Counsel, Mr. Nakul Ahuja, Panel Counsel, Mr. Tanishq Sharma, Mr. Akshay Pratap Singh, Advocates for DDA (M:9953992233) Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Hridyanshi Sharma, Advocate for UOI (M:9811199806) Ms. Puja Kalra, Standing Counsel with Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate for MCD (M:9312839323) + W.P.(C) 14960/2023 & CM APPL. 59755/2023, CM APPL. 67355/2023, CM APPL. 22037/2024 VISHWAJEET SINGH AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Shreya Garg, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Ms. Suman Gupta, and Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocates (M:9811129304) Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS(C) 647/2024 & other connected matters Page 1 of 145 Digitally Signed By:AMAN UNIYAL Signing Date:23.12.2024 18:59:08 versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Deepika V. Marwaha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Standing Counsel, Mr. Nakul Ahuja, Panel Counsel, Mr. Tanishq Sharma, Mr. Akshay Pratap Singh, Advocates for DDA (M:9953992233) Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Sarvan Kumar, Advocate for UOI (M:9910483635) Ms. Puja Kalra, Standing Counsel with Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate for MCD (M:9312839323) Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Advocate for
Delhi High Court Bhasin Infotech And Infrastructure Pvt ... vs Conquerent Control System Pvt Ltd on 16 December, 2021 $~363 * Date of Decision: 16th December, 2021 + FAO (COMM) 202/2021 & CM APPL. 4550608/2021 BHASIN INFOTECH AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ravi Krishan Chandna, Mr. Naushad A.Khan, Mr. Manit Moorjani and Mr. Mudit Ruhella, Advs. versus CONQUERENT CONTROL SYSTEM PVT LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Nemo HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral) 1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court 03), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in OMP Number 23/2019 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which in turn had challenged the Arbitral Award dated 30.10.2018 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA 20.12.2021 22:05:10 FAO (COMM) 202/2021 Page 1 2. The respondent carries on the business of supplying electrical control panel and distribution board. The respondent approached the Haryana Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (hereinafter referred to as 'HMSEFC') at Chandigarh, Haryana under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'MSME Act') alleging that various work orders were placed by the appellant on the respondent and part payment there against was received. The respondent alleged that there were outstanding dues from the appellant. Thereafter, the parties were referred to arbitration by the Chairman of the HMSEFC cum Director of Industries & Commerce, Haryana. 3. The learned Arbitrator, vide Award dated 30.10.2018, directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.45,88,689/ (Rupees Forty Five Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Nine) towards the balance price of goods and interest thereon at the rate provided under Section 16 of the MSME Act, 2006 from 07.11.2017 till the date of payment. The learned Arbitrator also awarded cost of Rs.20,000/ in favour of the respondent. 4. The appellant challenged the said Award before the learned District Judge (Commercial Court03), who dismissed the same vide the Impugned order dated 31.08.2021. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned District Judge has failed to appreciate that the impugned Award was passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in favour of the respondent though the respondent had chosen not to lead any evidence in support of its claim. He submits that the appellant was never granted an Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA 20.12.2021 22:05:10 FAO (COMM) 202/2021 Page 2 opportunity to crossexamine the witness of the respondent, who had merely produced the documents before the learned Arbitrator. He further submits that the learned District Judge and the learned Arbitrator have also failed to appreciate that the invoices raised by the respondent, on the basis of which claims had been made before the learned A
State of Odisha and others ....... Opp. Parties Advocates appeared: For Petitioner : Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Senior Advocate being assisted by Mr. S. Satyakam, Advocate and Miss Adyasha Kar, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Manoj Mishra, Senior Advocate being assisted by Mr. Digambara Mishra, Advocate (For Opposite Party No.3) Mr. Amiya Kumar Mishra, AGA For Opposite Party No.1) CORAM : MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA Date of Judgment: 28.03.2024 JUDGMENT K.R. Mohapatra, J. IA No. 17789 of 2023 & W.P.(C) No. 36825 of 2023 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Award dated 7th September, 2023 (Annexure1) passed by Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Cuttack (for brevity 'the Council') in MSEFC Case No.50 of 2022 is under challenge in this writ petition. W.P. (C) NO. 36825 of 2023 Page 1 of 23 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY // 2 // Designation: A.R.CUMSR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 02Apr2024 15:23:35 2.1 The IA has been filed for with a prayer to stay operation of the impugned award under Annexure1. Facts of the Case : 3. The Petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 2013. Award under Annexure1 is assailed on the ground that it has been passed by the Council without following the mandatory provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for brevity 'the MSMED Act'). The matter came up for admission on 4th December, 2023. By that date, the Opposite Party No.3, namely, M/s Kalinga Industries had entered appearance. Entertaining IA No.17789 of 2023 filed with a prayer to stay operation of the impugned award under Annexure1, this Court passed an interim order staying operation of the award till the next date of posting, i.e., till 3 rd January, 2024, the date to which the matter was posted. The said order was assailed by the Opposite Party No.3 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to appeal bearing SLP(Civil) No.27607 of 2023. Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the said Special Leave to Appeal on 15 th December, 2023 with the following order: "The impugned order is in the nature of ad interim order and the High Court is yet to apply its mind on the question of
MR. ANKIT KOHLI (Proprietor of KSpice Industries) S/o. Sh. Desh Kumar Kohli I212, Sector1, Bawana Industrial Area, New Delhi110039. Also At C90A, BlockC, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi110026. ... Defendant SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 15,37,006/ (RUPEES FIFTEEN LAKH THIRTY SEVEN THOUSAND & SIX ONLY) AS ON 06.07.2023 DUE AND PAYABLE BY DEFENDANT ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 11.80% P.A. FROM 06.07.2023 TILL THE DATE OF REALISATION OF SUIT, PENDENTELITE & FUTURE INTEREST @ 11.80 % P.A. AND PENAL INTEREST @ 2% P.A. AS WELL AS COSTS. Date of institution of Suit : 17.07.2023 Date of Assignment to this court : 18.07.2023 Date of hearing of final argument : 22.12.2025 Date of Judgment : 22.12.2025 Digitally CS (Comm.) No.534/2023 Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Ankit Kohli. PREETI signed by 1/25 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi. 22.12.2025 JUDGMENT 1. By way of present judgment, I shall conscientiously adjudicate upon the Suit of plaintiff for Recovery of Rs.15,37,006/ alongwith interest @ 11.80% per annum pendentlite and future, till its realization alongwith costs of the Suit. 2. As derived from the pleadings, the concise facts of the plaint are being summarised hereunder. 2.1 Plaintiff Bank is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at 1501, Lokmangal, Shivaji Nagar, Pune 411005 and branch offices across India, including the East Patel Nagar Branch at 28/14, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi110008. Present suit is filed by Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Branch Manager of the plaintiff bank at its East Patel Nagar Branch, New Delhi, who has been duly authorized to institute, file, sign, and verify the present suit and perform all incidental acts pursuant to a Board Resolution dated 22.03.2022, read with Circular dated 19.04.2022. 2.2 The defendant, proprietor of M/s KSpice Industries, applied for a cash credit facility of Rs.7,00,000 under an MSME loan application dated nil in 2017. The said facility was sanctioned on 30.06.2017, and upon execution of loan documents, Loan Account No. 60286305011 was opened and maintained by the plaintiff bank. Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm.) No.534/2023 Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Ankit Kohli. AGRAWAL PREETI 2/25 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi. 22.12.2025 2.3 At the defendant's request, the plaintiff bank enhanced the existing cash credit
Golf View Corporate Tower B, Circle : 2 (1), Sector : 42, Sector Road, N E W D E L H I. GURGAON 122 002 [HARYANA]. P A N / G I R No. G 249. AND I. T. Appeal No. 1392 (Del) of 2005. Assessment years : 199697. M/s. Microsoft Corporation, Asstt. Director of Incometax, C/o. S. R. Batliboi & Company, Vs. International Tax Division, Second Floor, The Capital Court, Circle : 1 (2), LSC Phase III, Olof Palme Marg, N E W D E L H I. Munirka, N E W D E L H I110 067. P A N / G I R No. M 308. 2 I. T. Appeal Nos. 1331, 1332, 1333, 1334, 1335 & 1336 (Del) of 2008; I T. Appeal No. 1392 (Del) of 2005; A N D I. T. Appeal Nos. 1393, 1394 & 1395 (Del) of 2005. AND I. T. Appeal Nos. 1393, 1394 & 1395 (Del) of 2005. Assessment years : 19992000, 200001 & 200102. M/s Microsoft Regional Sales Corporation, Assistant Director of Incometax C/o. S. R. Batliboi & Company, Vs. International Tax Division, Golf View Corporate Tower B, Circle:2(1),Sector:42, Sector Rd. GURGAON 122 002 [HARYANA]. N E W D E L H I. P A N / G I R No. AADCM 1638 A. ( Appellants ) ( Respondents ) Assessee by : Shri N. Venkataraman, Sr. Adv.; Shri Rajan Vohra, C.A.; Shri Salil Kapoor; Adv.; Shri Mohd. Shafiq; Shri Sushant Mehta, C.A.; & Ms. Manju, Adv.; Department by : Shri S.G. Srivastava, Standing Counsel; & Shri L. M. Pandey [CIT] D.R.; O R D E R. PER K. D. RANJAN, AM : These group of appeals by three different assessees arise out of separate orders of the ld. CIT (Appeals)XXIX, New Delhi. These appeals were heard together and, for the sake of convenience, are being disposed, of by this consolidated order. 2. The appeal for assessment year 199697 of M/s. Microsoft Corporation in ITA No 1392 (Del) of 2005 and three appeals in ITA Nos. 1393/Del/2005 to 1395/Del/2005 3 I. T. Appeal Nos. 1331, 1332, 1333, 1334, 1335 & 1336 (Del) of 2008; I T. Appeal No. 1392 (Del) of 2005; A N D I. T. Appeal Nos. 1393, 1394 & 1395 (Del) of 2005. for Assessment Years 199900 to 200102 of Microsoft Regional Sales Corporation(MRSC) were heard together and thereafter 6 appeals of Gracemac Corporation in I. T. Appeal Nos. 1331, 1332, 1333, 1334, 1335 & 1336 (Del) of 2008 for assessment years 199900 to 200405 were also heard. The issues involved in the appeals are common and both assessees and Revenue have requested that the arguments and submissions for all the appeals should be considered together. 3. Microsoft Corporation (MS Corp) in its return filed for AY 199697 offered its income from licensing of software to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) to tax and did not offer to tax its income from sale of Microsoft software products to Indian Distributors. The assessing officer, however, taxed the payments received from Indian Distributors as 'royalty' under section 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and IndoUS DTAA. Against the said order MS Corp filed appeal before CIT(A) and while passing an order CIT(A) also confirmed the addition made to the income of MS Corp. Against this order assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. For AY 199900 to 200102 in case of MRSC, the payments received from Indian distributors on sale of Microsoft software products were not offered to tax as royalty. However, the assessi
Piyush Periwal & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Prasad, Advocate. For Respondents: Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, Advocates. Lzafeer Ahmad. B.F. for R3 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 947, 1001 of 2021, 525, 526, 499, 612 of 2022 1 With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 525 of 2022 (Arising out of Order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in IA No.43 of 2021 in C.P. (IB) No.09/GB/ 2019) IN THE MATTER OF: PLBB Products Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Madhulika Periwal & Ors. ...Respondents (Substituted vide order dt. 09.01.2024 in IA No.5654/2023) Present: For Appellant: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Mr. Saikat Sarkar, Ms. Akanksha Kaushik, Ms. Heena Kochar, Ms. Meena, Advocates, Lzafeer Ahmad. B.F. For Respondents: Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar and Mr. Kaustubh Prakash, Advocates. With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 526 of 2022 & I.A. No. 2474 of 2022 (Arising out of Order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in IA No.27 of 2021 in C.P. (IB) No.09/GB/ 2019) IN THE MATTER OF: Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF) ...Appellant Versus Madhulika Periwal & Ors. ...Respondents (Substituted vide order dt. 09.01.2024 in IA No.5651/2023) Present: For Appellant: Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG, Mr. Ritin Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sidhartha Barua, Mr. Praful Jindal, Ms. Tahira Kathpalia, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Amit Pareek, RP Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, Advocates. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 947, 1001 of 2021, 525, 526, 499, 612 of 2022 2 With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 499 of 2022 (Arising out of Order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in IA No.43 of 2021 in C.P. (IB) No.09/GB/ 2019) IN THE MATTER OF: Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF) ...Appellant Versus Madhulika Periwal & Ors. ...Respondents (Substituted vide order dt. 09.01.2024 in IA No.5656/2023) Present: For Appellant: Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG, Mr. Ritin Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sidhartha Barua, Mr. Praful Jindal, Ms. Tahira Kathpalia, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Amit Pareek, RP Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, Advocates. Mr. Kaustubh Prakash, Advocate for R3. With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 612 of 2022 (Arising out of Order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in IA No
Delhi High Court M/S Delhi Paper Products Co Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India on 13 January, 2023 2023/DHC/000364 % Judgment delivered on: 13.01.2023 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 356/2019 M/S DELHI PAPER PRODUCTS CO.PVT. LTD ..... Appellant versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Sandeep Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr Ravinder Singh, Ms Raveesha Gupta, Mr Srisatya Mohanty, Ms Kanchan Semwal, Mr Sanjeev Kaushik and Mr Shreyas Awasthi, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Mr Gokul Sharma, Advocate CORAM HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J 1. The appellant has filed the present intracourt appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the A&C Act') impugning a judgement dated 01.11.2018 (hereafter 'the impugned judgement') in OMP 1195/2012. The respondent had filed the said application (OMP 1195/2021) impugning the arbitral award dated 06.06.2012 (hereafter 'the impugned award') under Section 34 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal FAO(OS)(COMM)356/2019 Page 1 of 15 Signing Date:18.01.2023 2023/DHC/000364 of the A&C Act. By the impugned judgement, the learned Single Judge allowed the said application and set aside the impugned award. Factual Context 2. The appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 19, I.G.I, Gurgaon Road, Kapashera, NewDelhi110037. It is involved in the business of supply of paper products (that is, fax rolls, computer paper, photocopier paper etc.) to various government departments and their ministries in India under annually renewed rate contracts with the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposal (DGS&D). 3. On 08.09.2000, the respondent awarded the appellant a Rate Contract bearing PP3/RC06011800/062000/Photocopier Paper/2000 2001/D0488/DPPC/158 (hereafter 'the contract') for the supply of photocopier paper for the period of 20002001. 4. On 21.03.2001, the Controller of Stores (SF) South Central Railway, Secundrabad (hereafter 'the consignee') placed the following Supply Orders with the appellant: Supply Order No. Date Value in Rs. P.P.83.00.1130.90515 21.03.2001 5,84,100 P.P.83.01.1004.2.90516 21.03.2001 1,37,610 P.P.83.01.1132.2.90517 21.03.2001 4,25,919 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal FAO(OS)(COMM)356/2019 Page 2 of 15 Signing Date:18.01.2023 2023/DHC/000364 5. The contract was shortclosed with effect from 08.08.2001, by an amendment dated 27.07.2001. The appellant had made the supplies against the Supply Order no. 90515. However, the supplies made against the said Supply Order were allegedly found to be defective a
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 21:53:17 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