abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Madras High Court P.P.Thomas vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 July, 2022 C.S.No.190 of 2012 Judgment reserved on 26.04.2022 Judgment pronounced on 13.07.2022 CORAM The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY Civil Suit No.190 of 2012 and Application Nos.6042, 9635 and 9636 of 2018 P.P.Thomas, Government Contractor, Palannattil House, Kunnackal P.O., Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam District, Kerala682 316. ... Plaintiff vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By the Secretary to the Government PWD, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai600 009. 2. Superintending Engineer, PWD, Periyar Dam Special Circle, Madurai625 002 Presently, at PWD, Water Resources Organization Periyar Vaigai Basin Circle Near Central Market, Madurai625 001. ... Defendants Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the O.S Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. 1908, praying to pass judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff seeking (A) for a declaration that the Defendants committed breach of contract under Agreement No.8/SE/PDC/198889 and prevented performance and completion of the work within the period stipulated in the agreement, which expired on 21.06.1992 and that the rejection of the claims for payment of the unpaid value of the works carried out and other https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/80 C.S.No.190 of 2012 amounts due to him notified on 11.07.1993 by the First Defendant on 05.06.1996 and 03.07.1993 is illegal, unjustified & invalid and consequently, the First Defendant is liable for payment at the market rates prevailed for the works delayed beyond 21.06.1990, by disgorging the unjust enrichment obtained by nonpayment of the same, to compensate the losses caused to the Plaintiff, to restore his position ante; (B) for a declaration that the penalty of Rs.80,000/ (Rupees Eight Thousand only) imposed on the Plaintiff alleging slow progress is illegal, unjustified & invalid and consequently, the First Defendant is liable to compensate the loss by refund of the amount illegally recovered along with interest thereon at 18% p.a. from the date of suit till realization; (C)directing the First Defendant to pay Rs.2,60,75,350/ (Rupees Two Crore Sixty Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty only), towards unpaid cost of Rs.39,900 cum of broken stones obtained by blasting of hard rock in the Reserved Forest in the Kerala State on obtaining permission for the same on 23.12.1989, in liew of the buffer stock of blasted stones in the dump yard near the Vents of the Additional Regulator of the Periyar Dam, which was washed off in the flood as notified at Rs.64,22,500/ including interest thereon at 18% p.a. till date of payment by disgorging the unjust enrichment obtained by the Defendants; (D) directing the First Defendant to pay Rs.4,31,04,780/ (Rupees Four Crores Thirty One lakhs Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty only), towards unpaid market value of works carried out between 21.07.1990 and 23.05.1994 notified a Rs.1,06,16,941/ including interest thereon at 18% p.a. From 23.05.1994 onwards till 23.09.2011 and payable with interest at the
Bombay High Court M/S. Clinirx Research Private Limited vs Bilcare Limited, Thr.Its ... on 14 November, 2017 AO (St) 801017.doc CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 8010 OF 2017 with CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 9167 OF 2017 M/s. CliniRX Research Pvt. Ltd. A Company incorporated under the Company Act, 1956, having its registered office 4th Floor, Suit No.402, TQM Business Centre, Sector 29, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 And 4th floor, Link House, 3, Bahdur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002 ..Appellant (Org. Defefndant) v/s. 1) Bicare Limited A Company incorporated under the Company Act, 1956 through its Authorized representative Mr. Suyog Bagul, Finance Controller GCS SBU, Bilcare Ltd. Age Adult, Occupation Service having its registered office at 1028, Shiroli, Rajgurunagar, Pune 410505. (Org. Plaintiff) 2) Mr. Rakesh Bansal, Age 49 years, Occ: Professional 4th Floor, Link House 3, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002 (Org. Defendant No.2) SALGAONKAR 1 of 30 ::: Uploaded on 18/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on 19/11/2017 01:08:58 ::: AO (St) 801017.doc 3) Mr. Sujit Kumar Mukherjee Director, Age Adult, Occ: Service, 4th Floor, Link House, 3 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002 (Org. Defendant No.3) 4) Mr.Pawan Kumar Rustagi Director, Age : Adult, Occ: Service, B1, 1589, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 (Org. Defendant No.4) 5) Bhawana Rustagi, Secretary, Age Adult, Occ: Service, A8, Jagat Puri, Gali No.1, New Delhi 110051 (Org. Defendant No.5) ..Respondents Mr. Vijay Thorat, Sr. Advocate a/w. Sandeep Gaur a/w. Mr. Deep Narayan Mishra for the for the Appellant/Applicant. Mr. Astad Randeria a/w. Mr. Harshad dedhia a/w. Bhoumick Vaidya i/b. Kanga & Co. for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON : 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2017 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 14th NOVEMBER, 2017. JUDGMENT : 1. The appellantoriginal defendant, has challenged the Order dated 6th March, 2017 whereby the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rajguru Nagar, Khed, dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside the judgment and decree dated SALGAONKAR 2 of 30 ::: Uploaded on 18/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on 19/11/2017 01:08:58 ::: AO (St) 801017.doc 28th July, 2016 in Special Civil Suit No. 2 of 2016 (Old Spl. Civil Suit No.22 of 2014). 2. The brief facts relevant to decide this appeal are as under: The respondent was the plaintiff and the appellant was the defendant in Spl. Civil Suit No.22 of 2014 filed in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune and shall be hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant respectively. 3. The plaintiff had filed a suit against the aforesaid defendant for recovery of money. The defendants on being served with summons, put in appearance through their Advocate and sought time to file the written statement. The defendant did not file the writte
1. State of Maharashtra Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 (through the Government Pleader, High Court, Original Side) 2. Additional Collector, Aurangabad Office of the Collector, Near Trazeri Office, Labour Colony, Aurangabad, Maharashtra 431 001 3. Collector and District Magistrate Old Custom House, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ... Respondents Page 1 of 95 ::: Uploaded on 07/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on 07/08/2025 21:35:50 ::: 901.WP1813.16(J).DOCX WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1689 OF 2015 1. Big Tree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Wajeda House, Behind Gazebo House, Gulmohar Cross Road No.7, Juhu Scheme , Mumbai 400 049 2. Rajesh Balpande Director of Petitioner No.1 Having office at Wajeda House, Behind Gazebo House, Gulmohar Cross Road No.7, Jubhu Scheme, Mumbai 400 049. ... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Maharashtra Revenue and Forests Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai400 032 (through the Government Pleader, Original Side) 2. The Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, 9thfloor, Administrative Building, Government Colony, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. ... Respondents ______________________________________________________ Mr. Naresh Thacker a/w Mr. Chakrapani Misra, Mr. Sameer Bindra, Ms. Ananya Misra i/by Khaitan & Co. for the Petitioners in WP/1813/2016 and for the Applicant in NMW/6/2017. Mr. Rohan Rajadhyakshaa/w Mr. Rajendra Barot, Mr. Dhaval Vora, Mr. DhirajkumarTotala and Mr. Tejas Raghav i/by AZB & Partners for the Petitioners in WP/1689/2015. Page 2 of 95 ::: Uploaded on 07/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on 07/08/2025 21:35:50 ::: 901.WP1813.16(J).DOCX Mr. Milind More, Addl. G. P. for Respondents Nos.1 & 3 in WP/1813/2016 and for Respondents Nos.1 & 2 in WP/1689/2015 for State of Maharashtra. ______________________________________________________ CORAM M.S. Sonak& Jitendra Jain, JJ. RESERVED ON 28 July 2025 PRONOUNCED ON 6 August 2025 Judgment (Per Jitendra Jain, J.) 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner no.1 Association of Multiplex Theatres in Writ Petition No.1813 of 2016, have sought the following reliefs: "a) to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned
State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ... Mr.Mihir Desai i/b Mr.Chetan Mali, Advocate for the applicant in Criminal Bail Application No.1020 of 2012. Ms.Rohini Salian, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr.S.R.Shinde, APP for the State. WITH CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1066 of 2012 Ms.Sushma Hemant Ramtekke ... Applicant versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ... Mr.Sudeep Pasbola with Ms.Susan Abraham, Mr.Ram Pawade and Rahul Arote i/b Mrs.Sharmila Kaushik for the applicant. Ms.Rohini Salian, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr.S.R.Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : October 3, 2012 ::: Downloaded on 09/06/2013 19:12:40 ::: 2/26 BA 1020 AND 106612 ORAL ORDER: 1 These two applications can be conveniently disposed of by a common order, as the applicants are the accused in one and the same case. i.e. Sessions Case No.655 of 2011 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, at Sewree, Mumbai. 2 The applicant Jyoti Chorge (in Bail Application No.1020 of 2012) is the Accused No.4, while the applicant Sushma (in Bail Application No.1066 of 2012) is the Accused No.2 in the said case. The case is in respect of offences punishable under sections 387 IPC, 419 IPC, 465 IPC, 467 IPC, 468 IPC, 471 IPC read with section 120B of the IPC, and also in respect of offences punishable under section 10, 13, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 21, 38, 39, 40(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, as amended upto 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'UAP Act' for the sake of brevity). There are totally seven accused who have been arrested in the said case and eight more are said to be absconding and wanted. 3 The applicants are alleged to be the members of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) which is a Terrorist Organization. ::: Downloaded on 09/06/2013 19:12:40 ::: 3/26 BA 1020 AND 106612 The Central Government has declared it to be so by a notification issued on 22 June 2009 whereby the said Organization was enlisted in the schedule appended to the said Act. The prosecution case is that on 25 April 2011, on certain information, the Anti Terrorism Squad, which is the Investigating Agency in the present case, arrested one Angela Sontakke @ Angela Teltumbde (Accused No.1 in this case). Certain incriminating articles which are said to be provocative publicity material etc. were found with her. When she was interrogated, she led the police to her house i.e. a room where she was residing with the Accused No.2 Sushma (Applicant in BA No.1066/12). The Accused No.2 was present in the said room. The said room was searched and some laptops, mobile handsets, some audio and video cassettes which are said to be the publicity
Delhi High Court Orders Krishna vs Manav Sewarth Trust on 30 January, 2024 $~3 * + ARB.P. 586/2023 KRISHNA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikas Sharma, Ms. Manvi Rajvanshy, Advs. versus MANAV SEWARTH TRUST ..... Respondent Through: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH ORDER % 30.01.2024 I.A. 10766/2023EX. 1. Exemption is granted subject to all just exceptions. 2. The petitioner shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules before the next date of hearing. 3. The application is disposed of. ARB.P. 586/2023 4. This is a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties. 5. The arbitration Clause is contained in Clause 50 of the Agreement dated 07.11.2020 which reads as under: "CLAUSE 50 SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES All disputes or differences of any kind whatsoever that may arise between the Owner/Project Manager/Site Engineer and the Contractor in connection with or arising out of the Contract or subject matter thereof or the execution of Works, whether during the progress of Works or after their completion, whether before This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be reverified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/02/2024 at 23:45:27 or after determination of Contract shall be settled as under: 50.1 Mutual Settlement All such disputes or differences shall in the first place be referred by the Contractor to the Owner in writing for resolving the same through mutual discussions, negotiations, deliberation etc. Associating representatives from both the sides and concerted efforts shall be made for reaching amicable settlement of disputes or differences." 50.2 Conciliation/Arbitration 50.2.1 It is a term of this Contract that Conciliation/Arbitration of disputes shall not be commenced unless an attempt has first been made by the parties to settle such disputes through mutual settlement. 50.2.2 If the Contractor is not satisfied with the settlement by the Owner/Project Manager on any matter in question, disputes or differences, the Contractor may refer to the Management of the Owner in writing to settle such disputes or differences through Conciliation or Arbitration provided that the demand for
Kerala High Court M/S.C.V.Thomas vs The State Of Kerala on 23 March, 2016 PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2017/21ST CHAITHRA, 1939 WP(C).No. 18166 of 2016 (U) PETITIONER(S) : M/S.C.V.THOMAS, CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED(OPC), VI/254 A, KOTTISSERIKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., KERALA 686 691, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, SABU THOMAS. BY SRI.G.SHRIKUMAR (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADV. SRI.ANIL VINCENT RESPONDENT(S) : 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARYTO GOVERNMENT, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, PROJECT II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, PROJECT CIRCLE, PIRAVOM. 4. M/S.MARY MATHA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, MARYMATHA SQUARE, ARAKKUZHA ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA 686 661, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SIBU CHERIAN. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V.MANOJKUMAR R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.SHANES METHAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24032017, THE COURT ON 11042017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Msd. WP(C).No. 18166 of 2016 (U) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : P1 TRUE COPY OF EPROCUREMENT NOTICE/INVITATIONS FOR BIDS (IFB). P2 TRUE COPY OF BID DETAILS. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BID SUBMISSION CONFIRMATION. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 23.03.2016 FROM NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5 TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT PURCHASE ENLISTMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LIMITED. P6 TRUE COPY OF THE BID OPENING SUMMARY. P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION AWARDING THE CONTRACT IN FAVOUR OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P8 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER SUMMARY REPORTS. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES : EXHIBIT R3(A): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE TENDER CONDITION. EXHIBIT R3(B): TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 20.02.2014. EXHIBIT R3(C): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO. 7201/2015 DATED 02.11.2015. EXHIBIT R3(D): TRUE COPY OF THE BID SUBMISSION CONFIRMATION. EXHIBIT R3(E): TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF CLAUSE 4.5 (A) IF ITB. EXHIBIT R3(F): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.04.2016 BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA. EXHIBIT R3(G): TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 18.05.2016. EXHIBIT R3(H): TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM OF HANDING OVER THE SITE TO THE CONTRACTOR. EXHIBIT R3(I): A TRUE COPY OF THE INVITATION FOR BID (IFB) & INSTRUCTION OF BIDDERS (ITB). WP(C).No. 18166 of 2016 (U) EXHIBIT R3(J): A TRUE COPY OF BID EVALUATION REPORT. EXHIBIT R3(K): A TRUE COPY OF QUALIFICATION INFORMATION IN SCHEDULE B SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THEIR BID. EXHIBIT R3(L): A TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT LETTER DATED 15.11.2016. EXHIBIT R4(A): TRUE COPY OF THE TURNOVER CERTIFICATE AND IT RETURN VERIFICATION FORM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH BID. ANNEXURE R3(A): PHOTO COPY OF THE BID SUBMISSION CONFIRMATION. //TRUE COPY// P.S.TOJUDGE. Msd. P.V.ASHA, J.
1. M/s. Kamarajar Port Limited No.17, Jawahar Buildings Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001 2. Yes Bank Limited ONE, International Center, TowerII 15th Floor, Senapatti Bapat Marg Elphinstone (W) Mumbai 400 013 3. UCO Bank Chief Manager Flagship Corporate Branch 1st Floor, Mafatlal Center Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/46 WP 12950 of 2021 4. SICAL Logistics Limited represented by (Insolvency Resolution Professional) Mr. Sripatham Venkatasubramanian Ramkumar (Regd.No.IBBI/IPA001/IPP00015/20162017/10039) South India House No.73, Armenian Street Chennai 600 001 5. SICAL Iron Ore Terminal Limited South India House No.73, Armenian Street Chennai 600 001 .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent relating to the impugned termination notice KPL/OP/3.12/130 dated 22.03.2021 insofar as terminating the contract entered between first and fifth respondent is concerned, quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to grant extension of time for completion of work and thereby granting time for making payments to the second respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian, Senior Advocate for Mr.Ramasubramaniam Raja For Respondents : Mr. R. Sankara Narayanan Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Ramaswamy Meyyappan for R1 Mr. Karthick Seshadri for R2 Mr. Anant Merathia for R4 Mr. S. Gopinath for R5 ORDER The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/46 WP 12950 of 2021 respondent relating to the termination notice bearing No.KPL/OP/3.12/130 dated March 22, 2021 insofar as it relates to the termination of the contract entered between the first and fifth respondents, quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to grant extension of time for completion of work and making payments. 2.The necessary facts, which are required to be appreciated for disposal of this writ petition, are as under: 2.1 The petitioner MMTC Limited is a government owned trading company engaged in the business of minerals, metals and precious products. It
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION 1. Vide this judgement, this court shall dispose of the aforementioned complaint case filed by the complainant company namely M/s Salora International Ltd. against the accused Mr. Vikas Mehra in respect of the dishonour of three cheques bearing no's. 014475 dated 27.09.2010 for Rs. 8,56,950/, 014476 dated 08.10.2010 for an amount of Rs.7,71,034/ and 014477 dated 13.10.2010 for an amount of Rs.8,16,125/ all drawn on The Khattri Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., 4 L.S.C. Saini Enclave, Karkardooma Delhi 110092 (hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Cheques"). 2. In a nutshell, it is the case of the complainant company that it is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of colour televisions and its components as well as distribution and marketing of IT and telecom products. It is further the case of the complainant company that the accused had been regularly purchasing goods from them on credit basis and had been making payments with respect to them from time to time. Allegedly the complainant company was also maintaining a current and running account relating to these transactions with the accused. It is further alleged that the accused placed purchase orders and bought certain goods from the complainant company vide invoices dated 28.08.2010, 08.09.2010 and 14.09.2010 and issued the impugned cheques in favour of the complainant company against these goods received by him. CC No. 21709/16 2 of 26 Salora International Vs. Vikas Mehra 3. It is further the case of the complainant company that upon presentation, the impugned cheques were dishonoured for the reason "Exceeds arrangement" and were returned vide 03 cheque return memos, all dated 03.12.2010. Thereafter the complainant company sent a legal demand notice dated 16.12.2010 to the accused through registered post A.D. and courier which was duly served upon him. Since the accused did not pay the amount of the impugned cheques within the statutory period of 15 days from the receipt of legal demand notice, hence, the complainant company has moved this court with the present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the "NI Act"). 4. In the presummoning evidence, the Authorised Representative (hereinafter referred to as the "AR") of the complainant company examined himself as CW1 on affidavit being Ex. CW1/P and placed on record certain documents i.e. certificate of incorporation of the complainant company being Ex. CW1/A (OSR), certified true copy of the board resolution in favour of the AR being Ex. CW1/B (OSR), copy of five invoices being Mark C1 to Mark C5, the three impugned cheques being Ex. CW1/D, Ex.CW1/E and Ex.CW1/F , the three bank return memos being Ex. CW1/G, Ex.CW1/H and Ex. CW1/I, the envelope in which the bank return memos were delivered to the complainant company being Ex.CW1/J, office copy of legal demand notice being Ex. CW1/K, CC No. 21709/16 3 of 26 Salora International Vs. Vikas Mehra original registered A.D. receipt being Ex. CW1/L, original courier receipt Ex. CW1/M, and internet generated tracking report being Ex. CW1/N. 5. U