abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
M/s Maha Laxmi Store (Through its proprietor Sandeep Kumar) R/o B30/C, FC, Block B, Sanjay Colony, Bhatti Mines, New Delhi110074 ..........Defendant Digitally signed SANJEEV by SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2024.07.26 SINGH 16:18:28 +0530 CS (Comm) No.74/2023 Canara Bank vs. M/s Maha Laxmi Store Page 1 of 20 Date of institution : 09.02.2023 Date on which final argument was concluded : 19.07.2024 Date of Judgment : 26.07.2024 JUDGMENT 1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant under The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 seeking recovery of Rs.11,77,999.6/ along with pendente lite and future interest @ 9.15% per annum compounded with monthly rests plus 2% penal interest and cost of the suit through its Senior Manager namely Sh. Dipanshu who has been duly authorized vide Authority Letter / Power of Attorney dated 01.03.2016. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: 2. The version of the plaintiff is that the defendant availed the credit facilities from Syndicate Bank having its head office at Manipal, Karnataka and one of its branch office at Khasra No. 229/2, Main Road, 145, Fatehpur Beri, Delhi110074; that pursuant to the gazette Notification No. CGDLE04032021216535 published on 04.03.2021 of the Government of India, Syndicate Bank has been amalgamated with Canara Bank under section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980; that the defendant approached the applicant bank for availing a SOD credit / loan facility under MSME (Micro & Small Enterprises) for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/ to purchase stock and machines on dated 02.05.2019; that upon various assurances and documents given by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank the SOD credit / loan facility for the Digitally signed by SANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2024.07.26 SINGH 16:18:38 +0530 CS (Comm) No.74/2023 Canara Bank vs. M/s Maha Laxmi Store Page 2 of 20 abovesaid amount was sanctioned for one year subject to annual review in favour of the defendant on 15.05.2019 duly acknowledged by the defendant and the defendant agreed to repay the sanctioned amount alongwith @ 10.15% bearing Loan Account No. as 901
Orissa High Court M/S. Hindustan Copper Ltd vs State Of Odisha And Ors. .... Opposite ... on 20 September, 2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25Sep2025 16:24:46 W.P.(C) No. 26911 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). M/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd., .... Petitioner (s) Kolkata versus State of Odisha and Ors. .... Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Gautam Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Along with associates. For Opp. Party (s) : Mr. Saswat Dash, AGA Mr. Gautam Mishra, Sr. Adv. Along with Mr. Ramesh Agarwal, Adv. (for O.P.3) DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:18.07.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:20.09.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The present Writ Petition has been preferred seeking quashing of the order/ award dated 30.07.2024 passed by the Opposite Party No.2/ Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, Rourkela in MSEFC Case No.24 of 2010. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Page 1 of 26 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25Sep2025 16:24:46 (ii) That, the Petitioner is a Government of India enterprise engaged in manufacturing activities. (iii) The Petitioner floated a tender for 700M/Ts of Iron Balls and the present Opposite Party No. 3 was selected as a supplier in accordance with the terms of notice. A purchase order was, accordingly, issued in favour of O.P. No. 3. (iv) It is alleged that due to nonsupply of Iron Balls within the scheduled period, the extraction of ore and subsequent delivery to potential buyers was delayed. The same caused financial losses to the present Petitioner and accordingly, the present Petitioner delayed the release of certain payments to O.P.No. 3. (v) Aggrieved, O.P.No. 3 approached the MSEFC Council alleging delay in payments, and the matter was registered as MSEFC Case No. 24 of 2010. Accordingly, the present Petitioner received notice on 13.9.2011. The present Petitioner filed a preliminary objection raising the issue of jurisdiction, but the MSEFC proceeded with the matter. (vi) The present Petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 10041 of 2015 challenging the vires of the MSMED Act, 2006 and additionally sought quashing of proceedings in MSEFC Case No. 24 of 2010. Vide order dated 3.6.2015, this Court in W.P.(C) No. 10041 of 2015 had stayed further proceedings in MSEFC Case No. 24 of 2010. (vii) However, it appears that despite the stay order, the MSEFC Council had passed final order dated 1.3.2016 in MSEFC Case No. 24 of 2010 directing the Petitioner to pay interest on delayed Page 2 of 26 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Madras High Court Karnataka Power Corporation Limited vs Commissioner Of Customs on 14 September, 2022 W.P.No.20499 of 2019 Dated: 14.09.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P.No.20499 of 2019 Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Shakthi Bhawan, Race Course Road, Bangalore 560 001, Represented by Chief Engineer (Electrical Designs), V.Chandrasekhar ... Petitioner Vs 1.Commissioner of Customs, Department of Revenue, Customs House, No.33, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001. 2.Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds), Office of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai II, Customs House, 60 Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. ... 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 records of the 2nd Respondent which culminated in the Impugned Order No.66945/19 dated 04.01.2019, quash the portion of the Impugned Order whereby the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1 W.P.No.20499 of 2019 Petitioner’s claim for refund to the extent of Rs.56,72,983 was rejected and direct the 2nd Respondent to grant refund of the said amount (the full refund amount being Rs.2,57,11,308) to the Petitioner, together with interest on the full refund amount of Rs.2,57,11,308/ with effect from 26 August 1995 until the date of payment, at the interest rates notified from time to time. For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.Swaroop For Respondents : Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan Senior Standing Counsel ORDER The petitioner is the Karnataka Power Corporation and seeks a quash of order dated 04.01.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds)/R2 to the extent to which it aggrieves the petitioner. 2. Heard the detailed submissions of Mr.M.V.Swaroop, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The facts relevant to decide the issue are as follows: (i) The petitioner is a Government of Karnataka undertaking engaged in the business of power generation. It has a Hydro Electric Generation power plant at Sharavathi and had imported epoxy coils along with accessories for the same. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 W.P.No.20499 of 2019 (ii) The bills of entries dated 25.08.1994 and 27.08.1994, had, admittedly, classified the coils under Entry 8544.11 and the spares and accessories under Entry 6815.99 under the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (in short ‘Act’). (iii) Subsequently, the petitioner came to understand that the classification had been incorrect and that the imported goods should have been classified under Entry 8503 of the Tariff. (iv) Customs duty had been remitted on selfassessment basis at the time of import, albeit on the basis of the erroneous tariff headings, and hence an application for refund had been filed by the petitioner on 27.08.1994. (v) Since the issue that arises in this Writ Petition is as regards the specific items for which refund was sought, it would be worth setting out the exact language in which the refund had been sought by the petitioner. The refund application is thus extracted i
through its Secretary & others in WPS No. 3010/2018 and other analogous cases, once the outstanding issue of release of part gratuity and part group insurance is resolved, as per the mechanism devised by the court therein, this balance amount under those heads would also be released in an expeditious manner. 3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Board in the light of the relevant material facts taken note above. At this stage, this writ petition is being disposed of with the following directions: Claim for admissible dues of the petitioner be examined by the competent authority / Respondent No. 2 after scrutiny of the service record of the employee in accordance with law and informed decision be taken within a reasonable time, preferably twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Admissible dues be also released without any delay thereafter. The balance admissible dues, if any, towards part gratuity and part group insurance lying with the erstwhile BSAMB / counterpart State of Bihar, be released as per the 2 resolution of the issue arrived at between the two Bodies in the light of the order dated 30.10.2018 in an expeditious manner thereafter. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/
Madras High Court P.S.Textiles vs The Chairperson on 13 August, 2025 WP No. 28299 of 2025 DATED: 13082025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA WP No. 28299 of 2025 P.S.Textiles Rep. By Proprietor, S Balasubramanian, No.60/277 Bharathi Nagar, Ammapalayam, Anupparpalayam (Post), Thirupur 641 652. Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Chairperson Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC), Office Of The Industries Commissioner And Director Of Industries And Commerce, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. 2.The Secretary Regional Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitaiton Council, District Industries Centre, Coimbatore. 3.M/s. SAANVI INDUSTRIES (SAANVI CLOTHING PVT LTD), Rep By it Proprietor Mr. Jinal Dhiren Rathore, Plot No. 450 Veerabhadrapalaya, Vasundhara Layout Near Kcop Circle, Doddaballapur, Neelamangala Road, Doddaballapura, Bangalore 561203. Respondent(s) 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 11:38:51 am ) WP No. 28299 of 2025 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to amend the MSME order No. MSEFC/CBER/212/2021, dated 11.11.2022, by substituting the 3rd respondent's correct address in Bangalore, in place of the residential address in Mumbai, based on Petitioner's representation dated 27.05.2025, within a stipulated time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Anandhamoorthy For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Manoharan, AGP for R1 and R2 ORDER The above writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to amend the MSME order No. MSEFC/CBER/212/2021 dated 11.11.2022, by substituting the 3rd respondent's correct address in Bangalore, in place of the residential address Mumbai, based on petitioner's representation dated 27.05.2025, within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court. 2. The petitioner is a registered Small Enterprise under the MSMED Act, 2006. The petitioner is engaged in manufacture and export of knitted garments. 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2025 11:38:51 am ) WP No. 28299 of 2025 The petitioner states that it supplied textile fabrics to the 3rd respondent between 01.11.2017 and 22.10.2018 under 21 invoices, for a total value of Rs.60,57,800/. The petitioner states that out of the said amount, Rs.18,90,000/ remained unpaid despite the petitioner's repeated requests. As the 3 rd respondent failed to pay the amount of Rs.18,90,000/ to the petitioner, the petitioner filed an application in Application No. TN28A0071519/M/00091, before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (1st and 2nd respondents herein) under Section 18(1) of the MSMED Act. The petitioner states that the Council after hearing, passed a final order on 11.11.2022, directing the 3rd respondent to pay the principal amount of Rs.18,90,000/ along with compound interest as per Sections 15 and 16 of the Act. The petitioner states that, when he received the final order, he was shocked to note that in the final order, the 3rd responde
Accused : Sri.Shivakumar.B.K. S/o Krishnappa, Age 49 years, R/at.No.84, 1st Cross Road, 2nd Main Road, Srinivasa Nagara, 2 C.C.15204/2019 Sunkadakatte, Bengaluru 560 091. Also residing at: Sri.Shivakumar.B.K. S/o Krishnappa, Age 49 years, Machohalli Colony, Bapagrama Post, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru 560 091. Also residing at: Sri.Shivakumar.B.K. S/o Krishnappa, Age 49 years, Badakanapalya Village, Mookanahalli Post, Kasaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District. { By Sri.B.Shiva Kumar Advocate } Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act., Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty Final Order : Accused is acquitted Date of Order : 03052023 3 C.C.15204/2019 JUDGMENT The present complaint is filed under section 2(d) read with section 200 of code of criminal procedure against the accused seeking to punish him for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( in short referred as "N.I. Act"). 02. The thumbnail of the averments of the complaint are as under; It is averred in the complaint that, the accused is entered into an agreement of sale dated 28.03.2016 with the complainant by agreeing to sell the site formed in survey number 77/1 of Machohalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, measuring to an extent of East to West : 40 Feet and North to South: 20 Feet, totally measuring 800 square feet for a sum of Rs.7,60,000/ and the accused has received earnest money of Rs.5,60,000/ from the complainant and 4 C.C.15204/2019 had agreed to execute the absolute registered sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.2,00,000/. It is further averred that, despite of repeated request and demand made by the complainant, the accused did not come forward to execute the absolute sale deed in respect of the aforesaid property. But, for the reasons best known to the accused, he agreed to repay the advance amount of Rs.5,60,000/ to the complainant and accordingly has issued two cheques as under; 01. Cheque bearing No.702880 dated 14.03.2019 for a sum of Rs.02,50,000/ and 02. Cheque bearing No.702881 dated 15.04.2019 for a sum of Rs.03,10,000/. Both the cheques were drawn on State Bank of India, Kadabagere Cross Branch, Kadabagere Cross, Magadi Road, Bengaluru in favour of the complainant. On the assurance made by the accused, the complainant has presented the said 02. Cheque bearing No.702881 dated 15.04.2019 5 C.C.15204/2019 for a sum of Rs.03,10,000/. for encashment through his banker, but it returned unpaid with banker's endorsement dated 29.04.2019 as "Funds Insufficient". On 27.05.2019, the complainant got issued demand notice to the three residential addresses of the accused by RPAD and the notice sent to the residential address of the accused i.e., Badakanapalya village, Tumkur District was duly served on 31.05.2019 and the notice issued to another residential address i.e., Machohalli colony, Bengaluru
Delhi High Court Deepak Minda & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 19 December, 2025 $~ * % Reserved on: 25.09.2025 Pronounced on: 19.12.2025 + CRL.M.C. 8155/2024 DEEPAK MINDA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi, Mr. Anurag Mishra, Mr. Kumar Kshitij, Mr. Yashaswy Ghosh, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP with SI Chinki Yadav, PS Shalimar Bagh. Mr. Jeevesh Bindal, Advocate for R2. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA JUDGMENT RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (earstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) against the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the JMFC07, North West Rohini Court, New Delhi vide which the complainant's application under section 311 Cr.P.C., to examine PW8 was allowed. CRL.M.C. 8155/2024 Page 1 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:19.12.2025 19:31:48 Brief facts of the case: 2. The FIR records that on 10.06.2005 at about 8:00 a.m., while the complainant, Harish Bindal, was reading the newspaper at his residence at AE167, Shalimar Bagh, his wife allegedly injured herself by breaking her own bangle and called the police, following which she was taken to the hospital. At around 8:30 a.m., after she had left, his brothersinlaw Sunil Minda and Deepak Minda, accompanied by Kunal Minda, Ashwani Jain, Purakh Chand Minda and Kalpana Minda, allegedly entered his house forcibly, demanding withdrawal of a pending Rs. 3.5 crore credit case, and on his refusal, abused, assaulted, and dragged him into the street, during which Deepak Minda allegedly struck him, breaking his tooth and causing bleeding. The complainant dialled the PCR, and during the scuffle, Sunil Minda's spectacle glass fell and was retained by him. The medical examination (M.E. No. 39841) declared his injuries grievous, leading to registration of the aforesaid FIR under Sections 325/452/34 IPC. Submissions of the petitioner: 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order dated 24.09.2024 is wholly illegal, without jurisdiction, and liable to be set aside. It was submitted that under Sections 301 and 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, though a private person may appoint a pleader to assist the Public Prosecutor, the conduct of prosecution remains exclusively within the domain of the Public CRL.M.C. 8155/2024 Page 2 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:19.12.2025 19:31:48 Prosecutor, unless specific permission is granted to the private party to conduct the trial in terms of Section 302(1), which has admittedly never been sought by Respondent No. 2 (complainant). 4. Consequently, the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., at the instance of the complainant is not maintainable. Relian
5. Reading of the notice dated 04.06.2008/ Annexure A6 (referred to above) alongwith termination order dated 05/07/2008 it is clear that the applicant has been terminated treating him as Temporary employee on specific charge of filing of fake 'caste certificate' at the time of seeking entry in service. Such a charge, no doubt is punitive and cast stigma. 6. On behalf of the applicant, it is being argued that in the matter of termination of temporary employee (like the applicant), provisions of Disciplinary Proceedings and Appeal under Rule 2006 are not attracted. It is being submitted that provision regarding penalty and disciplinary proceedings including right to appeal/review under Rules 30 are applicable to Probationers/Permanent employees. According to the applicant termination of the temporary employee is being dealt with specifically under Rule 56(i) of Rule 2006. 7. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention made at the 'Bar'. 8. Term "employee" has been defined in the definition clause Rule 03 of Rule 2006 defines the term "Employee" and reads : "(8) 'Employee' means (a) a person in the employment of the Company including employees whose service aqre temporarily placed at the disposal of the company or a subsidiary or any PSU but does not include casual employee, work charged or contingent staff or workmen as defined in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and those governed by Industrial Employment (Standing orders)Act, 1946, and, (b) person on deputation too the company from Central/State Govt. Or a subsidiary of the company or any other PSU." 9. In view of the above we have no hesitation in hol
1. Union of India, rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, MOC& IT, Department of Posts, New Delhi110 001. 2. The Chief Postmaster General, Telangana Circle, Hyderabad500 001. 3. The Postmaster General, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad500 001. 4. The Supdt. Of Post Offices, Khammam Division, Khammam507 003. ....Respondents (By Advocate Mrs.K.Rajitha, Sr. PC for CG) P a g e | 1 of 31 OA.Nos.776 & 777/2019 O.A.No.020/0777/2019 1. Ch.Lakshminarayana, GrC, S/o Saambasiva Rao, Aged 42 yrs, Occ:GDS BPM, Kanaparru BO, A/w Satuluru SO, R/o Kanaparru Village, Circle Secretary NUGDS AP Circle. 2. Syed Basheerunnisa Begum, GrC, w/o Thaher Pasha, Aged 43 yrs, Occ:GDS BPM KV Padu BO, a/w Malikipuram SO, R/o Malkipuram Amalapuram Dn AP. 3. Alluri Venkata Raju GrC, S/o Sathyanarayana raju, Aged 60 years, Occ:GDS BPM, Mogallaaaaaaaaaaa BO, A/w Bendamuri Lanka SO, R/o Mogallamuri village, Amalapuram Dn AP. 4. M.Sridhar Reddy, GrC, S/o Venkata Reddy, Aged 42 yrs, Occ:GDS BPM, Vemavaram BO, a/w Phirangipuram SO, R/o Vemavaram Village, Narasaraopet DN AP. ...Applicants (By Advocate Mr.B.Gurudas) Vs. 1. Union of India, rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, MOC& IT, Department of Posts, New Delhi110 001. 2. The Chief Postmaster General, AP Circle, Vijayawada520 013.. 3. The Postmaster General, Visakhapatnam Region, Visakhapatnam5. 4. The Postmaster General, Vijayawada Region, Vijayawada 520 013. 5. The Supdt. Of Post Offices, Narasaraopet Division, Narasaraopet. 6. The Supdt. Of Post Offices, Amalapuram Division, Amalapuram. ....Respondents (By Advocate Mrs.B.Gayatri Varma, Sr.CGSC) P a g e | 2 of 31 OA.Nos.776 & 777/2019 ORDER PER HON‟BLE MRS. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these OAs, the same are being disposed of by this Common Order. 2. The applicants in both the OAs have challenged the action on the part of the respondents in denying them the pay and allowances/wages for 8.00 hrs duty for the work done on par with the regular employees in violation of the doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ enshrined under Article 39(D) of the Constitution of India and sought for the following relief: "To call for the records pertaining to denial of pay and allowances by the respondents for the 8.00 hrs work done by the applicants and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Rules and instructions prescribed and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the Articles 14, 21 and 39 (d) of the Constitution of India, and direct the respondents to grant pay and allowances for 8.00 hrs on par with the regular Departmental employees performing similar and identical duties, not less than the pay of MTS (Rs.18,000/) with effect from the date from which they are performing such duties, and pass such other order or other orders as this Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and