abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
The ACIT range 11(1)/16(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... Respondent ITA NO.1245/Mum/2016(A.Y.201112) The ACIT range 16(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... Appellant Vs. NGC NETWORK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai 400 013. PAN:AABCN1401A .... Respondent C.O.No.265/Mum/2017 (Arising out of ITA No. 1245/Mum/2016(A.Y.201112) NGC NETWORK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Mumbai 400 013. PAN:AABCN1401A .... Cross Objector Vs. ACIT, Range 16(1) Mumbai. .... Appellant in Appeal 2 ITA NO.2103/Mum/2014(A.Y.200910) ITA NO.1658/Mum/2015(A.Y.201011) ITA NO.1527/Mum/2016(A.Y.201112) ITA NO.1245/Mum/2016(A.Y.201112) C.O.No.265/Mum/2017 Assessee by : S/Shri Porus Kaka& Divesh Chawla Respondent by : Shri A. Mohan Date of hearing : 11/02/2020 Date of pronouncement : 26/02/2020 ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: These appeals by the assessee are for assessment years 200910, 2010 11 and 201112 and the appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 201112 are taken up together as the issues involved in all these appeals are common and are arising from same set of facts. For the sake of convenience facts are extracted from appeal of the assessee in assessment year 200910. ITA NO.2103/Mum/2014,A.Y. 200910. 2. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the assessment order dated 20/01/2014 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 3. Brief facts of the case as emanating from the records are: The assessee company is engaged in distribution of Satellite Television Channels namely, National Geographic Channel and History Channel( Now known as Fox Traveller Channel) in India. The assessee during the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal entered into international transaction with two of its Associated Enterprises (AEs) namely;(i) M/s. NGC Network Asia LLC ,USA & (ii) M/s. Fox International Channels (US) Inc. USA. The assessee provided business 3 ITA NO.2103/Mum/2014(A.Y.200910) ITA NO.1658/Mum/2015(A.Y.201011) ITA NO.1527/Mum/2016(A.Y.201112) ITA NO.1245/Mum/2016(A.Y.201112) C.O.No.265/Mum/2017 support services in the form of (a) Promo Production Services; (b) Long Form Production Services; and (c) Quality Control Services in relation to content versioning. To benchmark transactions with its AEs, the , assessee selected eight companies as comparables. The assessee adopted Transaction Net Margin Method( in short 'TNMM') as the most appropriate method. The OP/OC was the filter for determining PLI. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) rejected five out of eight comparables selected by the assessee and introduced two fresh comparables. Thus the final set of comparables adopted by the TPO for determining Arms Length Price (ALP) of the assessee's international transaction and their average arithmetic mean is as under: S.No. Name of the comparable company
1. M/s.P.Ragaventhra Electronics, Represented by its Proprietrix, Mrs.A.Jayalakshmi. 2. Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Represented by its Chairman & Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce, Chennai Region, ThiruViKa Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records in OP.No.MSESC/CR/40/2016 on the file of the second respondent and to quash the same as unconstitutional, illegal and unenforceable and further to direct the second respondent to refer the dispute to be resolved by referring the same to an institution under Alternative Dispute Resolution Services. ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 1 of 7 W.P.No.6278 of 2017 For Petitioner : M/s.T.K.S.Gandhi For Respondents : No Appearance ORDER The petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the second respondent, Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council O.P.No.MSEFC/CR/40/2016 dated 30.12.2016. 2. The Impugned Order is challenged by the petitioner, on the ground that it has been passed without following the Principles of Natural Justice. The impugned order indicates that a complaint/claim statement in O.P.No.MSEFC/CR/40/2016 was filed by the first respondent before the second respondent Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council on 30.06.2016 and that a hearing was held on 23.11.2016. On the said day, there was a representation on behalf of the petitioner as well as the first respondent. The case was adjourned by 15 days time for completing the conciliation. 3. A council meeting was thereafter held on 30.12.2016, however, on ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 2 of 7 W.P.No.6278 of 2017 the said day the petitioner was not present. The second respondent council has referred to Section 15 and 16 of the MSMED, 2016 and has concluded that the first respondent is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.10,18,000/ together with interest with monthly rests, at three times the Bank Rate notified as Reserve Bank of India as stipulated in MSMED Act 2006, as stipulated from the appointed due date respectively as above till the date was settled. Ordinarily, an order passed by the Facilitation Council is treated to be as an award within the meaning of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 4. Against such award, only a OP has to be filed before the jurisdictional Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A mandatory predeposit has to be made in terms of Section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006. Therefore, the petitioner would have been liable to predeposit the amount as is contemplated under Section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006 of the Act which reads as under:
Madras High Court The Tamil Nadu Medical vs Uttar Pradesh State Micro And on 18 October, 2024 W.P.No.10688 of 2024 DATED : 18.10.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.No.10688 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.11778 & 11779 of 2024 The Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited, 417, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Rep. by its Managing Director. .... Petitioner Vs 1.Uttar Pradesh State Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Sarvodaya Nagar, G.T.Road, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh – 205 005. Rep. by its Chairman. 2. M/s.Atul Generators Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Nunhai, Agra – 282 006. .... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the order passed by the first respondent in claim petition No.26/2012 dated 28.11.2016 and quash the same. Page 1 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.10688 of 2024 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ramanlal Additional Advocate GeneralII Assisted by Mr.Habeeb Rahman Government Advocate For R1 : No appearance For R2 : Mr.Sathish Parasran Senior Counsel ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the award dated 30.10.2023 in claim petition No.26 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent. 2. The petitioner is a Nodal Agency for procurement and distribution of drugs, surgical and suture items for about 11,000 Government Medical Institutions all over Tamil Nadu. It procures and supplies the equipment and goods to the Government hospitals as and when instructed by the Government or by the Directorates of Health and Family Welfare Department. In order to procure drugs, medicines, surgical and sutures, the tenders would be floated as and when the requirement for the equipment arises. Accordingly, in the year 2009, the petitioner floated an open tender for supply, installation and Page 2 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.10688 of 2024 commissioning of 130 Nos of 5 KVA diesel generator set (DG set) to various Primary Health Centres in the State of Tamil Nadu in which the second respondent become the lowest bidder and the work order was placed for a total value of Rs.2,05,39,740/ with a delivery period of 90 days. If the supplier failed to deliver the goods within a period of 90 days from the date of signing of agreement, liquidated damages will be levied at 0.5% of the value of the delayed goods or unperformed services of each week of delay or part thereof until actual delivery or performance up to a maximum deduction of 10% of the contract price. Further, 10% advance amount was payable within 30 days from the date of signing of contract agreement and against submission of bank guarantee for equivalent amount. 3. According to the petitioner, there was a delay in supply
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 : Sun Jun 14 04:19:11 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 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 14:46:43 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 in
Madras High Court Easun Reyrollee Limited vs The Micro And Small Enterprises ... on 30 October, 2023 W.P. No. 10665 of 2018 DATED : 30.10.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU W.P. No. 10665 of 2018 and W.M.P. Nos. 12611 and 12612 of 2018 and 24720 of 2019 Easun Reyrollee Limited, Temple Tower, 6th Floor, No. 672, (Old No. 476), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600035. Represented by its Chief Financial Officer Mr. A.Kamatchinathan … Petitioner vs 1. The Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Odisha ('MSEFC') Office of the Director of Industries, Killa Maidan, Buxi Bazar – 753001 Cuttack, Odisha. 2. Gupta Power Infrastructure Limited, EN – 62, Sector V, 7th Floor, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700091. ... 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 of the First Respondent in its proceedings in MSEFC Case No. 15/2014; and quash the impugned award dated 29.09.2016 passed in the above proceedings. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/7 W.P. No. 10665 of 2018 For Petitioner : Mr. T.K.Bhaskar For Respondents : Mr. U.Baranidharan, Additional Government Pleader (for R1) Mr. T.Sakthikumaran (for R2) ORDER Heard Mr. T.K.Bhaskar, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. U.Baranidharan, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the First Respondent and Mr. T.Sakthikumaran, Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2. The Second Respondent had made a claim in MSEFC Case No. 15/2014 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. 18,14,665.76 from the Petitioner towards remaining amount due for goods supplied with interest calculated in terms of that Act, in which an order dated 29.09.2016 was passed holding that the Petitioner was liable to pay the principal amount of Rs. 18,14,665.76 together with compounded interest with monthly rests at three times of the Bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India as stipulated in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/7 W.P. No. 10665 of 2018 Sections 15 and 16 of the MSMED Act, 2006 from the appointed due dates respectively till payment, which is challenged in this Writ Petition. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has filed a memo dated 30.10.2023, which reads as follows: “1. The Petitioner in the present Writ Petition was earlier represented by its Chief Financial Officer, Mr. A. Kamatchinathan. However, in the applications vide IBA/1045/2019 and IBA/1169/2019 filed under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), the Petitioner was ordered into corporate insolvency resolution proceedings by order of t
MSME COMMISSIONERATE & 1 other(s) Appearance: MR HM PARIKH, SENIOR ADVOCATE assisted by M/S.RASESH PARIKH and HEMANG PARIKH for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR MITUL SHELAT with MR RUTUL P DESAI(6498) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR GM AMIN(124) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 Date : 09/09/2019 ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside order dated 30.06.2018 (AnnexureA) passed by MSME Commissionerate. Under the said order, reference was made to respondent No.3 for arbitral proceeding in exercise of power under Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter to be referred as "MSME Act"). 2. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an Infrastructure Company and had entered into an agreement with joint venture consisting of Aquafil Polymers Company Pvt. Ltd. Page 1 of 16 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 09 21:49:16 IST 2019 C/SCA/11169/2018 ORDER (respondent No.2) and Wintech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. in respect of the work order issued in favour of the petitioner under 'Guwahati Water Supply Project'. It is submitted that respondent No.2 and Wintech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. being joint venture were separate entities. The joint venture did not perform its work as per the agreement and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to issue several notices to overcome defaults /breaches /defects in the work done. As the work was not carried out as per the agreement and to the satisfaction, by notice dated 08.01.2018, contract was terminated. Under the terms of the agreement, more particularly providing for arbitration clause, the joint venture, vide letter dated 08.02.2018 proposed name of Hon'ble Retired Supreme Court Judge as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes. In response, the petitioner took a stand by letter dated 14.02.2018 that under the relevant clause of the agreement, only the petitioner had right to appoint Arbitrator and such right was not available to the joint venture and accordingly, Hon'ble Retired Supreme Court Judge was appointed as sole Arbitrator. 2.1 It is submitted that the Hon'ble Retired Supreme Court Judge entered into the reference and directed the parties to appear for preliminary hearing. At that stage, respondent No.1constituent of the joint Page 2 of 16 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 09 21:49:16 IST 2019 C/SCA/11169/2018 ORDER venture, filed application before respondent No.1 by invoking provisions of the MSME Act. 2.2 Respondent No.1 issued notice. The petitioner appeared in response to such notice and ultimately, respondent No.1 reported failure of conciliation as provided under Section 18(2) and referred the matter to respondent No.3 in exercise of powers under Section 18(3). 2.3 Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is
1. State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government Environment and Forest (EC2) Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009 2. The Pollution Control Board represented by its Member Secretary Guindy, Chennai 3. The Secretary Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Indira Paryavaran Bhawan Ali Ganj, Jorbagh Road http://www.judis.nic.in New Delhi 110 003 2 4. The Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals Government of India Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi represented by its Secretary (RR3 and 4 were suo motu impleaded by order dated 29.01.2019 made in WP No. 33453 of 2018) .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the first respondent made in G.O. Ms. No.84, Environment and Forest (EC.2) Department dated 25.06.2018 and the Letter No.22592/EC.2/20181 dated 08.12.2018 and quash the same in so far as Non Woven Polypropylene Carry Bags are concerned and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners manufacturing, storing, supplying, trading and selling of Non Woven Polypropylene carry bags irrespective of GSM. For Petitioner : Mr. T.P. Manoharan, Senior Advocate for Ms. Selvi George in WP No. 33453, 33461 and 33463 of 2018 Mr. P.S. Raman, Senior Advocate for Ms. Selvi George in WP Nos. 1821, 1823, 1824, 1827, 1829, 1831, 1834, 2198, 2205, 2209, 2215, 3351, 3553, 3554, 3556, 3557, 3558, 3559, 3560, 3561, 3562, 3564, 3568, 4487, 4492 and 13040 of 2019 Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, Senior Advocate for Mr. E. Mohammed Abbas in WP No. 3984 of 2019 Mr. P. Wilson, Senior Advocate for Mr. G. Sankaran in WP Nos. 33738 of 2018 & 857 of 2019
Orissa High Court M/S. Jindal Stainless Limited vs M/S. Gupta Power Infrastructure on 13 October, 2022 W.A. No.50 of 2017 M/s. Jindal Stainless Limited .... Appellant Ms. S. Pattnaik, Advocate versus M/s. Gupta Power Infrastructure .... Respondents Limited and another THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH ORDER 13.10.2022 Order No. 02. 1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 16th January 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellant's W.P.(C) No.20420 of 2016. 2. In the said writ petition, the Appellant had challenged an order dated 28th June 2016 passed by the Director of Industriescum Chairman of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Counsel, Odisha, Cuttack in MSEFC Case No.14 of 2014 directing the Appellant to pay principal and interest amount up to 31st March 2014 as per Section 15 and 16 of the MSMED Act, 2006. The learned Single Judge noted that despite opportunity to the Appellant by forwarding an application of claim to it to file a reply, no counter affidavit had been filed. 3. Despite opportunity, with no counter affidavit has been filed, the Appellant was not in a position to demonstrate that there was any settlement arrived at between the parties. Page 1 of 2 4. The learned Single Judge was in the above circumstances justified in not interfering with the demand raised by the Respondent. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellant, the Court is unable to come to a different conclusion. There is no merit in the present writ appeal and it is dismissed as such. (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge M. Panda/S.K. Guin Page 2 of 2
WESTERN RAILAY & ANR. Appearance: MR.ANKIT JAIN AND MS.SHALAKA GARG WITH KRISHAL H PATEL(9644) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 SUNITA AGARWAL Date : 11/07/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. This is a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Act' 1996") seeking for appointment of arbitrator in view of the arbitration clause as part of the EPC (Engineering, Procurement and Construction) Agreement dated 31.05.2021 executed between the Consortium of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the President of India acting through the Chief Project Director, read with the Subsidiary Agreement dated 09.05.2023 executed between the consortium of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the respondent No.2 herein namely the Chief Project Director, Railway Electrification, Central Organization for Railway Electrification (CORE), having its Principal office at Ahmedabad, Gujarat. 2. The submission is that pursuant to the execution of the EPC Agreement, the supervision and overall management of the project work was entrusted to and the project work was Page 1 of 24 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 01 22:41:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/ARBI.P/85/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined being carried out under the supervision and control of CORE. However, during the execution of the work and vide Railway Board's Office Memorandum dated 11.09.2023, the Ministry of Railways, Government of India has decided to close the operations of CORE and transfer all of CORE's ongoing projects to the concerned Zonal railways. By virtue of the Circulars and guidelines and the resultant closure of CORE, the projects in question / EPC Agreement stands transferred to respondent No.1 namely the Western Railways within whose jurisdiction the project in question falls. 3. The contention is that by virtue of the said assignment, the respondent No.1 had became a party and is bound by the arbitration agreement contained in the EPC Agreement read with the Subsidiary Agreement, and all references to the respondent No.2 / CORE may, therefore, be understood and read as reference to respondent No.1. 4. On a dispute arose about the liability of the parties under the agreement, the petitioners wrote