abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
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 23:59:01 ::: 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 23:59:01 ::: 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 Rs.50
Central Information Commission Mr.Kamal Bhasin vs Ministry Of Power on 25 October, 2012 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Room No. 308, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066 File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/001593 Appellant Shri Kamal Bhasin Public Authority Power Finance Corporation Date of hearing 25.10.2012 Date of decision 25.10.2012 Facts : Heard today dated 25.10.2012. Appellant present. PFC is represented by Shri Alok Singhal, General Manager(Finance); Shri H.K. Das, DGM(CPIO) and Shri Praveen Verma, Manager(Legal). 2. In the RTI application dated 20.12.2011, the appellant has extracted the following observation from PFC's Annual Report for the year 200708 : "In case of one of the borrower, the dispute regarding recovery of interest amounting to Rs. 46.19 crores as on 31.3.007 has been settled for Rs. 18.97 crores with the approval of respective Board of Directors". The amount so settled has been accounted for as the income for the year following the provisions of the clause 9.5 of the Accounting Standard 9." In this connection, the appellant has sought information on 07 paras. 3. This was responded to by the CPIO vide letter dated 20.1.2012 requesting the appellant to deposit fee of Rs. 1,084/ for supply of 542 pages of documents. The appellant appears to have been reluctant to deposit this fee. Vide letter dated 27.1.2012, he had requested the CPIO to let him know the name of the borrower in dispute; nature of dispute and some other information. During the hearing, it transpires that in letter dated 9.2.2012, the CPIO had asked the appellant to give him atleast 05 days time for fixing a convenient date for inspection etc. However, the appellant chose to file the first appeal before the first Appellate Authority vide letter dated 17.2.2012. The appeal was decided by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 11.4.2012 offering inspection of the relevant records to the appellant. 4. During the hearing, Shri Singhal submits that Grid Corporation of India(GRIDCO)(a PSU of the Orissa Government) did not owe an amount of Rs.46.10 crores as on 31.3.2007, as mentioned in the Annual Report extracted above. PFC held negotiations with Gridco and settled the matter for Rs. 18.97 crores. 5. The appellant, however, is not fully satisfied with the response of PFC. He is keen to inspect the relevant records and to take extracts therefrom. In the premises, it is ordered that the appellant may be given inspection of the relevant records on a mutually convenient date and time and to take extracts therefrom, free of cost, subject to a maximum of 100 pages. If he needs additional pages, he will pay as per rules. 6. This order may be complied with in 05 weeks. Sd/ ( M.L. Sharma ) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission. ( K.L. Das ) Deputy Registrar Address of parties : 1. The Company Secretary & CPIO, Power Finance Corporation Ltd; Urjanidhi, 1 Barakhamba Lane, Connaught Place, N.Delhi1. 2. Shri Kamal Bhasin, 3ADDA Flats, Friends Colony(E), New Delhi110065.
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 dut
Madras High Court Steel Plant Employees' Union vs The Government Of India on 13 July, 2023 WP.No.10744 of 2016 Dated : 13.7.2023 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI Writ Petition No.10744 of 2016 & WMP.No.9380 of 2016 Steel Plant Employees' Union, rep.by its General Secretary, Salem636030. ...Petitioner Vs 1.The Government of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Shram Shakti Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi110001. 2.The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), No.26, III Block, 5th Floor, Shastri Bhawan, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai6. 3.Steel Authority of India Ltd., rep.by its General Manager (Personnel & Administration), Salem Steel Plant), Salem636030. ...Respondents PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.10744 of 2016 Commissioner to close the conciliation proceedings relating to dispute No.M.5(12)2016B2 dated 22.2.2016 and to submit a failure report to the 1st respondent Ministry and the 1st respondent, in turn, to refer the dispute for adjudication before the Central Government Industrial TribunalCum Labour Court, Chennai and to dispose of the same within a time frame to be fixed by this Court until then not to implement the proposed change in service conditions introduced by the 3rd respondent Management on 20.1.2016. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Govardhanan for M/s.Row and Reddy For Respondent2: No appearance For Respondent3: Mr.Shivathanu Mohan for M/s.S.Ramasubramaniam Associates ORDER This is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the second respondent to close the conciliation proceedings relating to dispute No.M.5(12)2016B2 dated 22.2.2016 and to submit a failure report to the 1st respondent, which, in turn, is sought to refer the dispute for adjudication before the Central Government Industrial TribunalcumLabour Court, Chennai and dispose of the same within a time frame to be fixed by this 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.10744 of 2016 Court and also for a further direction not to implement the proposed change in service conditions introduced by the 3rd respondent Management on 20.1.2016 till then. 2. The facts leading to filing of this case are as follows : (i) The petitioner is a registered trade union representing more than 500 members employed in the third respondent plant. There are about 950 workmen in the third respondent plant. That apart, there are staffs and officers employed there. (ii) In pursuance of the circular issued by the Corporate Office on 19.1.2016, the third respondent issued a circular on 20.1.2016 as to the admissibility of house rent allowance (HRA). Based
Himachal Pradesh High Court Bhup Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 9 November, 2021 1 . ON THE 8th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA Between: 1. BHUP RAM, S/O SH. PADAM SINGH, R/O VILLAGE KIARI, P.O. DARBHOG, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH 2. DHIAN SINGH, S/O SHRI DEVI SINGH, VILLAGE KAG­KUFTU, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH 3. MATHU RAM, S/O SHRI KANIYA RAM, VILLAGE KAG­KUFTU, P.O. DARBHOG, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH. ...PETITIONER ::: Downloaded on 31/01/2022 23:15:47 :::CIS 2 (BY MR. P.D. NANDA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH . THROUGH ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY (FORESTS), GOVT. OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA­ 171002 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, H.P. STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, SDA COMPLEX, VAN NIGAM BHAWAN, KASUMPTI, SHIMLA­171009 3. THE DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA­171001. 4. THE COMMANDANT, 1ST HPAP, BATTALION, JUNGA, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH. 5. THE DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA­ 171004 6. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, SDA COMPLEX, KASUMPTI, SHIMLA­171009 RESPONDENTS (BY MR. RAJINDER DOGRA, SENIOR ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL ::: Downloaded on 31/01/2022 23:15:47 :::CIS 3 WITH MR. SHIV PAL MANHANS, MR. HEMANSHU MISHRA AND MR. VINOD THAKUR, ADDL. A.GS WITH MR. BHUPINDER THAKUR, DY.A.G.) . (MR. RAMAN SETHI, ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENT NO. 2) (MR. BALRAM SHARMA, ASGI, FOR RESPONDENT NO. 6.) This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan passed the following: ORDER The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following relief(s): "i) The respondent Corporation may kindly be directed to regularise the services of the petitioners from 1.4.1999, 1.4.2002 and 1.4.2003 against 20.8.2007, 20.8.2007 and 28.8.2007 respectively in term of judgments Annexure A­4 to Annexure P­10 and thereafter to fix their pay in the departments with consequential benefits. ii) The respondent Corporation may kindly be directed to pay due and permissible retirement benefits viz: gratuity, bonus for the service rendered by the petitioners in the Corporation with interest with further directions to supply details of amount due, paid if any and balance payable on this account. ::: Downloaded on 31/01/2022 23:15:47 :::CIS 4 iii) the respondent Corporation and the RPFC may kindly be directed to pay the EPF benefits particularly EPF pension to petitioner No. 3 (EPF Account No. HP/SML/1206) with interest with further directions to supply details0 of amount due, paid if any and balance in respect of each petitioners. . iv) The respondents No. 3 to 5 may kindly be directed to pay the benefits accruing to petitioners in term of NPS with further directions to supply details of amount due paid if any and balance on this account. v) The respondents State may please be directed to complete formalities of preparation of retirement papers of each illiterate and Class IV employees before the date of their retirement by fixi
1.The Micro and Small Facilitation Enterprises Council, Tiruchirapalli Region, Represented by its Chairman, District Industries Centre, Tiruchirapalli620 001. 2.M/s.Orion Represented by its Managing Partner, V.Chandran ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to O.P.No.10 of 2007 dated 12.04.2010 in File No. 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.9174 of 2010 4045/A2/2006 of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan For R2 : Mr.C.Dhanaseelan For R1 : No Appearance ORDER *********** This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the award dated 12.04.2010 for a sum of Rs.35,17,123/ (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Seventeen Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Three only) passed by the first respondent / The Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council in favour of the second respondent against the petitioner under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred as the MSME Act, 2006). 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned award on the following grounds: (a). The first respondent has no jurisdiction to receive any reference under the MSME Act, 2006, since the transactions between the parties had commenced during 1996, much prior to the coming into force of the said Act. 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.9174 of 2010 (b). The claim of the second respondent is barred by the law of limitation without filing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay. The first respondent Council has entertained the claim of the second respondent against the petitioner. (c). Despite the admission made by the second respondent in their letter dated 10.07.1999 that the goods supplied by them are defective, the first respondent has passed an award in favour of the second respondent against the petitioner, which is perverse. (d). The first respondent had conducted the proceedings in gross contravention of Section 18 of the MSME Act, 2006 and there was no conciliation, much less an adjudication of the real dispute in hand in letter and spirit under the said Section and the award, dated 12.04.2010 passed by the first respondent in favour of the second resp
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 14:46:19 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
1 of 15 dtd.24.5.2010/k 2 payment of dues of Birla Textiles Mills; d. Concerned Clerk from ESIC regarding records pertaining to the accused; e. Concerned Clerk from EPFO regarding records pertaining to the accused; f. Concerned Patwari regarding records of Old Birla Lines and Birla Mills and; g. Concerned Clerk from the department of Archives, Delhi. 3. It is not mentioned in the application as to what point the accused wants to prove from these witnesses. This application is vehemently opposed by the complainant. 4. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the complainant company filed the present complaint u/s.630 of the Companies Act against the accused claiming that the accused was an employee of M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and by virtue of a scheme of arrangement, the complainant company acquired one Birla Mill Unit of the said company alongwith all its employees and properties. The accused was provided with a residential accommodation as a licensee, by virtue of his employment, which he was to vacate upon cessation of his services, but despite cessation of services, the accused failed to vacate the property and was wrongfully withholding the same. 5. The complainant, M/s. Texmaco Ltd. filed the present complaint u/s. 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, against the accused, alleging that the complainant company is duly incorporated under the said Act Order in Texmaco Vs. Mahabir Singh/Case no.1566/3 Page no. 2 of 15 dtd.24.5.2010/k 3 and, the complainant company is the proprietor of Birla Textile Mill, located at Post Office Birla Lines, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. It claims that the complainant company has various employees and housing colonies such as Old Birla Lines, New Birla Lines, Roshanara Building (Shivaji Lines), Birla Lines Officer's Flats and Birla Flats, and Khilona Wala Bagh etc. It claims that these housing colonies are located near the vicinity of the mill and they were allotted to employees for the greater convenience of the employees due to exigencies attached with their job and, so that the work of the mill is done effectively. It is also claimed that the complainant company acquired proprietary rights in respect of the mill, as well as, the housing colony vide a scheme of arrangement arrived at between the complainant company and M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., vide orders of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 03.1.1983 in Company Petition No.59/1982. It is also claimed that pur
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 23:58:54 ::: 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 23:58:54 ::: 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