abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Bombay High Court Veena H. Hinduja And Anr vs Hiranandani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ... on 9 September, 2019 Mohinder Rijhwani & Ors v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors & Veena Hinduja v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors appl 14219+J(1).doc Atul ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L) NO. 142 OF 2019 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 595 OF 2017 IN SUIT NO. 229 OF 2017 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 322 OF 2019 1. Mohinder Rijhwani, 2. Prakash H Rijhwani 3. Prem H Rijhwani All Adults Indian Inhabitants residing at A30/3, Maitri Park CHS Ltd, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 ... Appellants ~ versus ~ 1. Hiranandani Construction Pvt Ltd A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its address at "Olympia" Central Avenue, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai 400 076. Represented through its authorized signatory R Giridharadas 2. Veena H Hinduja & Haresh R Hinduja, Page 1 of 32 9th September 2019 ::: Uploaded on 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on 11/09/2019 20:25:25 ::: Mohinder Rijhwani & Ors v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors & Veena Hinduja v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors appl 14219+J(1).doc Both adults Indian Inhabitant residing at B38/1, Maitri Park CHS Ltd, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 3. M/s. Maitri Park Co operative Housing Society, A housing society registered under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 having ofce at Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071. ... Respondents A PPEARANCES IN APPL /142/2019 WITH NMCAL /322/19 FOR THE APPELLANTS/ Mr Arun Panickar, i/b Law Square. APPLICANTS FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1 Ms Deepa Pohuja, with Ms Sheetal Raghavi, i/b M/s. J. Law Associates. FOR RESPONDENT NO. 5 Ms Sushma Singh, with Priyanka Raul. WITH APPEAL (L) NO. 143 OF 2019 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 595 OF 2017 IN SUIT NO. 229 OF 2017 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 324 OF 2019 Page 2 of 32 9th September 2019 ::: Uploaded on 11/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on 11/09/2019 20:25:25 ::: Mohinder Rijhwani & Ors v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors & Veena Hinduja v Hiranandani Constructions & Ors appl 14219+J(1).doc 1. Veena h Hinduja, 2. Haresh R Hinduja both adults Indian Inhabitants residing at B38/1, Maitri park CHS Ltd, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 ... Appellants ~ versus ~ 1. Hiranandani Constructions Pvt Ltd A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 havint its address at "Olympia" Central Avenue, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai 400 076. Represented through its authorized signatory R Giridharadas 2. Ramesh H Gurbaxani & Laxman H Gurvaxani, Both adults Indian Inhabitant residing at A/35/2, Maitri Park CHS Ltd, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 3. Ambat Ravindranath, An Indian Inhabitant having his address at A/36/1, Maitri Park CHS Ltd, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 4. Mohinder Rijhwani, Prakash H Rijhwani & Prem H Rijhwani, All adults Indian Inhabitants residing at A/30/3, Maitri Park CHS Ltd, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai 400 071 Page 3 of 32 9th
1. Central Railway Board, through its Chairman, New Delhi. 2. Rail Wheel Plant Bela, a unit of Ministry of Railways, Government of India through its General Manager having its office at, Rail Wheel Plant/ Bela, Administrative Building, 1st floor, P.O. Arvind Nagar, Via Sitalpur, District Saran/ Bela, Bihar841221. 3. The General Manager Rail Wheel Plant, Ministry of Railways, Government of India, Bela. 4. The Principal Chief Materials Manager Rail Wheel Plant, Bela having his office at Rail Wheel Plant/ Bela, Administrative Building, 1st floor, P.O. Arvind Nagar, Via Sitalpur, District Saran/ Bela, Bihar 841221. 5. The Deputy Chief Materials Manager II Rail Wheel Plant, Bela having Office at Rail Wheel Plant/ Bela, Administrative Building, 1st floor, P.O. Arvind Nagar, Via Sitalpur, District Saran/ Bela, Bihar 841221. 6. M/s Nalari Ferro Alloys Private Limited Having its office at Shivam Complex Bhatatumakh, Guwahati 781009. ... ... Respondent/s For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr.Adv. Mr. Yash Singh, Adv. Mr.Kamal Kishor Singh, Adv. Mr. Tej Pratap Singh, Adv. For the Railways : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Addl. S.G. Mr.Ramadhar Shekhar, Adv. Ms. Parul Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent no.6: Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Adv. CAV JUDGMENT Date : 25112019 Challenging the action of the Railways in the matter of placement of purchase order to the private respondent no.6 visavis the petitioner on the ground of arbitrariness, Patna High Court CWJC No.10860 of 2019 dt. 25112019 2/38 extraneous consideration and violation of the Public Procurement Policy (Make in India) Order, 2017 dated 15.06.2017 issued by the Department of Industrial Promotion and Policy, Ministry of Commerce, and a complete gobye to the guidelines of the Central Vigilance Commission, the present writ application has been filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, it is said to be engaged in manufacturing railway track like elastic rail clips, inserts etc. and is engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of commodities like Ferro Silicon, Ferro Manganese etc. It is a RDSO approved manufacturer and claims to have executed contracts of several crores by effectively and successfully supplying track items to the Indian Railways. The petitioner claims that till date no dispute whatsoever has been raised in respect of the supplies made by the petitioner to the railways or by any of its customers. 3. With the aforementioned background, the petitioner participated in the tender floated by the respondent railways being Notice Inviting Tender No. 01161037 published Patna High Court CWJC No.10860 of 2019 dt. 25112019 3/38 on 30.05.2017, inviting bids for supply of Ferro Silicon from various categories of supplies as specified in the tender document. The manufacturers who were unregistered/untried were also eligible to participate in the tender and the respondents reserved their right to treat such vendor as a developmental vendor and
Competition Commission of India 9th Floor, Office Block1, Kidwai Nagar (East) ...Respondent New Delhi11 0023, India Present For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kochar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Dhruv Malik, Ms. Aditi Sinha, Advocates for CCI. Mr. Dinesh Chandra, Dy. Director, for CCI. Ms. Sunaina Dutta, Jt. Director (Law) for CCI. With Competition Appeal (AT) No. 48 of 2022 & I.A Nos. 3891, 3893 of 2022 IN THE MATTER OF: Rahul Gajanan Teni Office at 301303, A Square, Plot no. 34 ADC, Sector 26, Pradhikaran Pune, ...Appellant Maharashtra, Pin Code 411 044 Versus Competition Commission of India 9th Floor, Office Block1, ...Respondent Kidwai Nagar (East), Cont'd.../ 2 New Delhi11 0023, India Present For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kochar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Dhruv Malik, Ms. Aditi Sinha, Advocates for CCI. Mr. Dinesh Chandra, Dy. Director, for CCI. Ms. Sunaina Dutta, Jt. Director (Law) for CCI. With Competition Appeal (AT) No. 40 of 2022 & I.A No. 3233 of 2022 IN THE MATTER OF: Fimo Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. Through its Authorized Representative Office at Shop No. 3, Ground Floor, E99, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, ...Appellant No.1 Pin Code 110007. Mr. Jai Kumar Gupta, Director, M/S Fimo Infosolutions Private Limited Office at Shop No. 3, Ground Floor, ...Appellant No.2 E99, Kamla NagarDelhi, Pin Code 11 0007. Versus Competition Commission of India 9th Floor, Office Block1, Kidwai Nagar (East), ...Respondent New Delhi11 0023, India. Present For Appellants : Mr. Rahul Kochar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Dhruv Malik, Ms. Aditi Sinha, Advocates for CCI. Mr. Dinesh Chandra, Dy. Director, for CCI. Ms. Sunaina Dutta, Jt. Director (Law) for CCI. Competition Appeal (AT) Nos. 36,48,40 of 2022 3 JUDGMENT (23rd September, 2025) INDEVAR PANDEY, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) These appeals arise from the final order and judgment passed by the Competition Commission of India (Hereinafter referred to as "Commission") on 04.04.2022 under Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter called the Act), wherein the Commission held that Appellants along with other bidders, had contravened Sections 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) r/w Section 3 (1) of the Act. The appeals have been filed under Section 53 (b) of the Act challenging the impugned order of the Commission. Brief facts of the case 2. The commission received a general complaint dated 07.08.2018 alleging bidrigging in the tenders invited by the Department of Agriculture, Government of Uttar Pradesh for soil sample testing. The complaint related to alleged bid rigging in respect of two etenders namely, Tender 2018_AGRUP_210583_1 (Moradabad) dated 31.05.2018 ("Tender No. 1") and Tender 2018_AGRUP_212591_1 (Bareilly) dated 18.06.2018 ('Tender No. 2"), invited for the soil sample testing by the Department of Agriculture, Government of Uttar Pradesh. 3. It was stated in the complaint that the following parties participated in the aforesaid two tenders of soil testing in Uttar Pradesh: Competition Appeal (AT) Nos. 36,48,40 of 2022 4 (i) Yash Solutions (ii) M/s Satish Kumar Agarwal (iii) M/s Siddhi Vinayak and Sons (iv) M/s Saraswati Sales Corporation (v) M/s Lab Traders (vi) Edward Food Research and Analysis Centre Lim
Delhi High Court Akhilesh Trivedi vs Union Of India 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) 2278922847/2005 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) 2278922847/2005 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) 2278922847/2005 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 to set up
Hyderabad Hyderabad ITA No. 1638/Hyd./2010 Assessment Year: 200607 & ITA No. 1795/Hyd./2011 Assessment Year: 200708 M/s Hitachi Consulting Software Services India Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle 3(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 992/H/11, 1911/H/11, 1082/H/11 CO 53/H/11 AY 200506 ITA nos. 1638/H/10 AY 200607 1795/Hyd/2011 AY 200708 Hitachi Consulting Software Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad For Assessee: Shri PVSS Prasad, A.R. For Revenue: Sh. YVST Sai, CIT, D.R. Date of Hearing : 18/02/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 24/03/2021 ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, J.M. The instant batch of six appeals pertains to a single assessee M/s Hitachi Consulting Software Services India Pvt. Ltd (formerly known as Sierra Atlantic Software Services India Ltd). First and foremost Assessment Year 200506 involves assessee's and Revenue's cross appeals ITA Nos. 992 and 1082/Hyd/2011 along with former's Cross Objection in the latter appeal C.O.no. 53/Hyd/2011 preferred against the CIT(A)III, Hyderabad order dated 29.3.2011 passed in case no.0052/CIT(A)III/1011 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) rws 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short 'the Act'. This is followed by the former's appeal ITA 1911/Hyd/2011 directed against the very lower appellate order imposing sec.271(1)(c ) penalty of Rs.2,65,97,751/ by invoking sec. 271(1)(c) and qua enhancement of Rs.7,26,86,351/ u/s 92CA of the Act. The assessee's next appeals ITA 1638/Hyd/2010 and 1795/Hyd/2011 for AYs 200607 and 200708 dated 25.10.2010 and 2.92011; framed in furtherance to the Dispute Resolution Panel "DRP" Hyderabad's direction dated 24.9.2010 and 9.8.2011; respectively, invoking proceedings u/s 143(3) rws 144C of the Act. 2 ITA Nos. 992/H/11, 1911/H/11, 1082/H/11 CO 53/H/11 AY 200506 ITA nos. 1638/H/10 AY 200607 1795/Hyd/2011 AY 200708 Hitachi Consulting Software Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad Heard both the parties. Case file perused. It transpires during the course of hearing that almost all the issues raised in the instant batch of cases are identical/ inter connected ones. We thus proceed assessment year wise for the sake of convenience and brevity. A.Y. 200506 This first and foremost assessment year 200506 involves assessee's and Revenue's quantum appeals ITA 992 and 1082/H/2011 along with former's C.O. 53/Hyd/2011 in latter's case. This is followed by assesee's appeal ITA 1911/H/2011 in penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. We advert to the former 3 cases involving quantum assessment. Learned authorized representative at this stage invited our attention t
MS. RATNA KAPUR & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Jayant Kumar Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sulabh Rewari, Ms. Mansi Binjrajka & Mr. Raghav Bhatia, Advs. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA JUDGMENT 1. This petition purporting to be under Section 301 and 302 of the Indian Succession Act, 19251 has been preferred seeking the following reliefs: "(i) appoint an Administrator in respect of the estate of Late Shri R. K. P. Shankardass in terms of the provisions of Sections 301 and 302 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925; (ii) direct the Respondent No.l to render true and full accounts of the estate /properties of Late Shri R.K.P. Shankardass in her possession and control as well as distribution thereof including the immovable property(ies) other than those listed in Schedule 'A' to 'D' herein; (iii) direct the Respondent No.l to deposit all the amounts received from the estate of Late Shri R.K.P. Shankardass 1 Succession Act TEST.CAS. 77/2019 Page 1 of 41 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:15.04.2023 20:10:28 Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:2552 either as nominee or beneficiary in the Executor Account bearing No. 50100157899116 held with HDFC Bank, New Friends Colony, New Delhi 110065. (iv) to pass any other appropriate order / direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 2. The petition itself emanates from certain disputes which appear to have arisen amongst the executors named in the registered Will dated 15 February 2014 executed by the late Mr. R.K.P. Shankardass, a renowned and celebrated senior counsel of this Court. 3. The dispute centers upon the interpretation to be accorded to Clause 8D of the last testament of the late Mr. Shankardass. However, before proceeding further it would be relevant to notice certain essential facts. 4. The petitioner as well as respondents 1 and 2 were named as the executors of the bequest made by the late Mr. Shankardass in terms of his Will dated 15 February 2014. It would be pertinent to note that the petitioner and the second respondent, though named as executors, are not beneficiaries under the Will. The respondent no.1, the niece of the testator, is undoubtedly a beneficiary. Differences appear to have arisen between the executors with respect to the manner of distribution of properties set out in Schedule B and relating to Clause 8D of the testamentary bequest made by the late Mr. Shankardass. 5. For the purposes of evaluating the questions which stand raised, it would be pertinent at this stage to briefly notice some of the salient provisions which were made by the testator in terms of the bequest in question. In accordance with Clause 3 of the Will, the testator had TEST.CAS. 77/2019 Page 2 of 41 Signature Not Verified
Gauhati High Court Agarwal Store And Anr vs Guwahati Municipal Corporation And Anr on 30 January, 2019 Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010008672019 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C) 587/2019 1:AGARWAL STORE AND ANR. A PROPRIETORIAL FIRM, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT H.O. RADHA RANI MARKET, T.R.P. ROAD, GUWAATI 781001, ASSAM. 2: DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL PROPRIETOR OF AGARWAL STORE SON OF LATE SATYANARAYAN AGARWAL R/O CHINMOY COMPLEX A.T. ROAD GUWAHATI 781001 ASSA VERSUS 1:GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR. PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI 781001. 2:THE COMMISSIONER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS M HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GMC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN ORDER Date : 30012019 Heard Ms. M. Hazarika, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Borah, learned counsel for the Gauhati Municipal Corporation (GMC). Petitioner is a small scale industrial unit duly registered under the Directorate of Industries as Page No.# 2/2 such. Petitioner unit is also registered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short, "MSMED Act, 2006"). Petitioner has been supplying its manufactured items to the respondents and raising bills from time to time. Respondents had partially cleared the outstanding bills but a substantial amount is yet to be paid to the petitioner. Ms. Hazarika has submitted that for any default of the respondents in making payment for products supplied by the petitioner, Section 16 of the MSMED Act, 2006 provides for payment of compound interest. Therefore, respondents are liable to pay the total outstanding dues of various bills still to be cleared with interest under Section 16 of the MSMED Act, 2006. She has further submitted that petitioner had submitted a representation dated 01.11.2018 addressed to the Commissioner, Gauhati Municipal Corporation for payment of the outstanding bills due to the petitioner along with interest accrued thereon as per the provisions of the MSMED Act, 2006. However, the said representation has not yet been disposed of. Mr. Borah submits that the writ petition can be disposed of by directing the respondents, particularly, the Commissioner, GMC to look into the petitioner's representation and to pass appropriate order(s) as well as to make payment, if entitled to, after undertaking necessary verification. Ms. Hazarika submits that this court may fix a time frame as may be considered appropriate for disposal of the petitioner's representation and for making payment. Mr. Borah has no objection. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, Commissioner, GMC is directed to consider the representation dated 01.11.2018 filed by the petitioner for making payment of outstanding dues with interest within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
M/S SHAH PAPER PACK INDUSTRIES Appearance: MR ANSIN DESAI with MR.PARTH CONTRACTOR(7150) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR NIRAV THAKKAR with MR DIGANT M POPAT(5385) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Date : 11/11/2022 CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) 1. This is a petition preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 10.08.2022 passed by the learned Commercial Court at City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Commercial Misc. Page 1 of 43 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 17 20:39:24 IST 2022 C/SCA/21687/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2022 Application No. 167 of 2022 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 inter alia challenging the order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the learned sole arbitrator. A Former Judge, High Court of Gujarat, acting as a Sole Arbitrator rejected the application filed by the respondent under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in the arbitration proceedings being Arbitration Case No. A058 of 2019 initiated by the petitioner against the respondent. 1.1. The arbitral proceedings have been initiated under Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act hereinafter) and therefore any challenge to any order passed in such arbitral proceedings, according to the petitioner, is to be only under Section 19 of the MSME Act and not under any other provision. Again, it is decided by the plethora of the decisions that no separate challenge can be made under the provision of the Act or under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the rejection of an application preferred under Section 16 of the Act. The only remedy available is that the Arbitral Proceedings ought to continue and the final award could be Page 2 of 43 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 17 20:39:24 IST 2022 C/SCA/21687/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 11/11/2022 subject to the challenge under Section 34 of the Act. 1.2. Section 34, as averred in the petition, does not contemplate or take within its ambit any challenge to the rejection of an application preferred under Section 16 of the Act. Moreover, it is further averred that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of facts and law and it is not an issue of jurisdiction and therefore also, an application under Section 16 could not have been preferred in the first place. Furthermore, it is urged that therefore, the Commercial Misc. Application is not maintainable and the Commercial Court does not have a jurisdiction to deal with and decide the same. Even the interim order passed is without the jurisdiction and is therefore liable to be set aside. 2. The petitioner supplied MG Craft Papers to the respondent in the year 2013 for which the petitioner raised four separate tax invoices on 30.09.2013, 19.10.2013 and 21.01.2013 and 09.11.2013 upon the respondent accumulating to total Rs. 13,10,388/ with a