abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Madras High Court T.Senguttuvan … vs Ashokkumar on 28 May, 2025 2025:MHC:1271 E.P.No.9 of 2021 RESERVED ON : 02.09.2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 28.05.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA E.L.P.No.9 of 2021 T.Senguttuvan … Petitioner Vs 1.Ashokkumar, K. 2.Chandramohan, K.M. 3.Tamilselvan, S. 4.Ameenulla 5.Sasikumar, K.S. 6.Nirandari, V. 7.Ravishankar, R.K. 8.Ruthramani, T. 9.Vijayakumar, R. 10.TVS Gandhi 11.Kumaresan, M 12. Gopinath, M. 13.Sakthi, K. 14.Sivan, C. 19.G.Karpagavalli 1/150 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 04:07:05 pm ) E.P.No.9 of 2021 (Respondents 15 to 18 struck off in ELP.No.9 of 2021 as per order of this Court dated 11.01.2022 made in O.A.No.672 of 2021 in ELP.No.9 of 2021) ... Respondents Prayer: Election Petition filed under Sections 80, 80A, 81, 84 r/w Sections 100, 101, 123, 123(6) & 129 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 R/w. The conduct of Election Rules, 1961, for the following reliefs: i) declare the election of the 1st respondent to No.53, Krishnagiri Assembly Constituency in the State of Tamil Nadu on 02.05.2021 as illegal, void and liable to be set aside. ii) Declare the petitioner herein as duly elected to the No.53, Krishnagiri Assembly Constituency in State of Tamil Nadu with effect from 02.05.2021. iii) Direct the 1st respondent to pay the cost of the petition. For Petitioner : Mr.Richardson Wilson For Respondent1 : Mr.P.V.Ramanjujam, Senior counsel for Mr.BAravind Srivatsa ORDER 2/150 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 04:07:05 pm ) E.P.No.9 of 2021 Challenging the election of the 1st respondent as the returned candidate of No.53, Krishnagiri Assembly Constituency, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs: i) Declare the election of the 1st respondent to No.53, Krishnagiri Assembly Constituency in the State of Tamil Nadu on 02.05.2021 as illegal, void and liable to be set aside. ii) Declare the petitioner herein as duly elected to the No.53, Krishnagiri Assembly Constituency in State of Tamil Nadu with effect from 02.05.2021 and iii) Direct the 1st respondent to pay the cost of the petition. 3. Petitioner's case: (i) It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (hereinafter referred to as "DMK party") and has been a resident of Velgalahally Village having been born there. The petitioner has been active in the political arena since his young age having been inspired by great leaders like Periyar, Perarignar Anna and 3/150 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 04:07:05 pm )
2. Challenge to the award is made mainly on account of the fact that in the proceedings held before the Arbitrators and the Trial Court under Section 34, the award has been upheld contrary to the mandate of Section 34 (2)(a)(iv) and Section 34(2)(b)(ii). It is said that even though this Court under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 has limited powers of intervention and jurisdiction but in view of the breach of Section 34 sub section 2(a)(iv) and sub section 2(b)(ii) the appeal is maintainable and interference should be made. 3. Facts in brief necessary for deciding the dispute in question indicates that a concessionaire contract/ agreement was executed on 11.4.2003 between the parties herein for construction of the SagarDamohJabalpur road total length of which was 170 kms. The period for completion of the contract was 18 months and the concession period was 5440 days i.e. 14.9 years which included the construction period. The value of the project was 89.78 Crores and total grant (subsidy) payable was 47.70 Crores, out of this a grant of Rs.23.84 Crores was actually paid by the appellant till termination of the contract. The contract was terminated by the appellant on 12.7.2007 i.e. after four years and three months and according to the appellant not even one kilometer of bituminous road was constructed. As per averment made in the memorandum of appeal and submissions made before us by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, arbitration clause was invoked on 14.2.2011 i.e. after a period of three years and seven month of termination and therefore, the dispute was beyond limitation. The Arbitrator passed the award on 22.8.2014 and after decision on the application under Section 34 on 22.2.2016, this appeal under Section 37 was filed on 4.4.2016 and after certain interim orders were passed by this Court on 25.4.2016, matter was taken up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court at the instance of the appellant in Civil Appeal No.1015210153/2016. The Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the SLP on 7th October 2016 and requested this Court to decide and dispose of this appeal on merits within two months . 3 Arbitration Appeal No:: 23 / 2016. MP Road Development Corporation Limited Vs. M/s Jabalpur Corridor (India) Pvt Ltd. 4. Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Counsel took us through various aspects of the matter pertaining to passing of the award, the illegalities committed in the proceeding held before the Trial Court under Section 34 and argued that the appellant being conscious of the limitation of this Court in a proceeding under Section 37 is challenging the award mainly on the ground that the learned Arbitral Tribunal and the Trial Court in the proceeding held under Section 34 have gone into matters, not referred to for arbitration and by awarding amount towards 'debt due' and 'cost of machine' which were not matters referred or submitted for arbitrati
Comp App (AT)(CH) (Ins) Nos. 309 & 321/2023 1 of 75 1. CA Mahalingam Suresh Kumar Resolution Professional for GBJ Hotels Private Limited IBBI/IPA001/IPP00110/2017 2018/2017 Having office at: S.P.P. & Co., Chartered Accountants 27/9, Nivedh Vikas, Pankaja Mill Road Puliyakulam Road, Coimbatore 641045 Ph: +91 7373052341 ...Respondent No.1/ Email [email protected] Resolution Professional 2. Committee of Creditors represented by Indian Overseas Bank Represented by its Chief Manager Asset Recovery Management Branch Crosscut road, Gandhipuram Coimbatore 641012 ...Respondent No.2/ Email [email protected] Financial Creditors 3. K.P. Advisory Services LLP D. No. 63865/1/2, Flat No. 203 Greenland Apartments Ameerpet, Begumpet, Secunderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana 500 016 ...Respondent No.3/ Email [email protected] Successful Resolution Applicant Present: For Appellants : Mr. R. Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Advocate For Dr. K.S. Ravichandran, PCS Ms. S. Manjula Devi, Advocate Comp App (AT)(CH) (Ins) Nos. 309 & 321/2023 2 of 75 For Respondent : Mr. E. Om Prakash, Sr. Advocate For Mr. A.G. Sathyanarayana, Advocate for Caveator/R1 Mr. M.L. Ganesh, Advocate for IOB R2 Mr. Rahul Balaji, AdvocateR3 WITH Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 321/2023 (IA Nos.979 and 980/2023) (Under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 r/w Rule 22 of NCLAT Rules, 2016) (Arising out of the Impugned Order dated 25.08.2023 in IA(IBC)349(CHE)/2023 in CP(IBC)/279/CHE/2021, passed by the 'Adjudicating Authority' (National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench) IN THE MATTER OF: 1. Mr. G. Balasubramaniam Promoter / Suspended Director of GBJ Hotels Private Limited (Currently under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process) T.S. No. 4035, Krishnasamy Nagar, 50 Feet Road, Ramanathapuram Coimbatore 641045 Mobile No. 9994055713 ...Appellants No.1/ Email [email protected] Suspended Director 2. Mrs. B. Jeevarathinam Suspended Director of GBJ Hotels Private Limited (Currently under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process) T.S. No. 4035, Krishnasamy Nagar, 50 Feet Road, Ramanathapuram Coimbatore 641045 Comp App (AT)(CH) (Ins) Nos. 309 & 321/2023 3 of 75 Mobile No. 9994055713 ...Appellants No.2/ Email [email protected] Suspended Director Versus 1. CA Mahalingam Suresh Kumar Resolution Professional for GBJ Hotels Private Limited IBBI/IPA001/IPP00110/2017 2018/2017 Having office at: S.P.P. & Co., Chartered Accountants 27/9, Nivedh Vikas, Pankaja Mill Road Puliyaku
Delhi High Court Man Mohan Singh Attri vs Union Of India & Anr. on 23 December, 2024 $~ * + CONT.CAS(C) 647/2024 VISHWAJEET SINGH AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Shreya Garg, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Ms. Suman Gupta and Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocates (M:9811129304) versus SH SUBHASISH PANDA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Deepika V. Marwaha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Standing Counsel, Mr. Nakul Ahuja, Panel Counsel, Mr. Tanishq Sharma, Mr. Akshay Pratap Singh, Advocates for DDA (M:9953992233) Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Hridyanshi Sharma, Advocate for UOI (M:9811199806) Ms. Puja Kalra, Standing Counsel with Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate for MCD (M:9312839323) + W.P.(C) 14960/2023 & CM APPL. 59755/2023, CM APPL. 67355/2023, CM APPL. 22037/2024 VISHWAJEET SINGH AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Shreya Garg, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Ms. Suman Gupta, and Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocates (M:9811129304) Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS(C) 647/2024 & other connected matters Page 1 of 145 Digitally Signed By:AMAN UNIYAL Signing Date:23.12.2024 18:59:08 versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Deepika V. Marwaha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Standing Counsel, Mr. Nakul Ahuja, Panel Counsel, Mr. Tanishq Sharma, Mr. Akshay Pratap Singh, Advocates for DDA (M:9953992233) Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Sarvan Kumar, Advocate for UOI (M:9910483635) Ms. Puja Kalra, Standing Counsel with Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate for MCD (M:9312839323) Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Advocate for
M/s. Indian Bank represented by its Deputy General Manager ... Respondent / Plaintiff PRAYER: Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1 O.S.A.Nos.149 of 2019 and 298 of 2019 Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Section 13(1) of Commercial Court Act praying to allow this Original Side Appeal with cost and set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2019 passed in C.S. No.167 of 2011 on the file of the Original Side of this Court and thereby, dismiss the suit with cost. For Appellant / : Mr. N. Venkatraman Defendant for M/s. Nageswaran and Narichannia For Respondent / : Ms. Aishwarya.V for M/s. R&P Partners Plaintiff O.S.A.No.248 of 2019 M/s. Indian Bank represented by its Deputy General Manager ...... Appellant / Plaintiff vs. The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., represented by its Senior Divisional Manager, D.O. III, Pankaj Complex, II Floor, No.69, Perambur Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai600 007. ...... Respondent / defendant PRAYER: Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with Section 13(1) of Commercial Court Act praying to allow this Original Side Appeal with cost and set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2019 on the file of the Original Side of this Court to the extent of rejection of interest prayed by the appellant / plaintiff in C.S. No.167 of 2011 along https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 O.S.A.Nos.149 of 2019 and 298 of 2019 with cost. For Appellant / : Ms. Aishwarya.V for M/s. R&P Partners Plaintiff For Respondent / : Mr. N. Venkatraman Defendant for M/s. Nageswaran and Narichannia COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by P.DHANABAL,J.) Both these Original Side appeals have been preferred as against the decree and judgment passed in C.S. No.167 of 2011 dated 29.01.2019 on the file of the original side of this Court, wherein the plaintiff Indian Bank represented by its Deputy General Manager, Chennai, had filed a Suit as against the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, Vepery, Chennai.
1.Tamil Nadu Spinning Mills Association, Reg No.330/1997, No.2, Karur Road, Modern Nagar, Dindigul – 624 001, represented by its Chief Advisor, K.Venkatachalam. 1/60 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)Nos.973, 975 to 980 of 2022 2.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Energy Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. represented by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.16677 of 2022, dated 23.08.2022. In W.A(MD)No.973 of 2022: For Appellant : Mr.P.Wilson Senior Counsel for Mr.Richardson Wilson For R1 : Mr.Sricharan Rengarajan for Mr.R.S.Pandiyaraj For R2 : Mr.P.Wilson Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader *** JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.SRIMATHY, J.) The Writ Appeal W.A.(MD)No.973 of 2022 is filed challenging the order passed in Writ Petition W.P.(MD)No.16677 of 2022, dated 23.08.2022. 2/60 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)Nos.973, 975 to 980 of 2022 2. The prayer in the writ petition W.P.(MD)No.16677 of 2022 is to issue Writ of Mandamus forbearing the first respondent Commission from holding anymore hearings and also direct the first respondent Commission to rescind its Daily Orders dated 19.07.2022 by cancelling the entire proceedings happened before the first respondent Commission in an in camera mode on the petitions filed by the TANGEDCO/TANTRANSCO/SLDC in violation of the proposition declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 14697 of 2015 dated 12.04.2018 and in Contempt Petition No.429 of 2020 dated 28.08.2020, 07.12.2020 & 20.01.2021 and not to hear anymore, any other petitions filed or pending before the first respondent Commission until a MemberLegal is appointed first at the first respondent Commission by the secon
1. Neena Choudhary W/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar Choudhary, R/o House No.2614, Sector 40C, Chandigarh160036. .....Respondent No.1/Complainant 2. Chief Administrator of PUDA (Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority), PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar, Mohali. 3. Chief Administrator of GMADA (Greater Mohali Area Development Authority), Mohali Bypass Road, Sector 62, SAS Nagar, Mohali. 4. Punjab National Bank, SCO 37, Sector 37D, Chandigarh, through its Branch Head. .....Respondents No.24/Opposite Parties No.35 First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for setting aside the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SAS Nagar, Mohali in Consumer Complaint No.155 of 2022. 2 First Appeal No.564 of 2025 Quorum: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member Present: For the Appellants : Sh. Chahat Goyal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Sh. Umang Bansal, Advocate For Respondents No.2&3: Service dispensed with vide Order dated 17.09.2025 For Respondent No.4 : None 1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No 3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT: The Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, i.e. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, SAS Nagar Mohali and another have filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the 'Act') being aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (in short the "District Commission") in Consumer Complaint No.155 of 2022, whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant had been partly allowed. 2. There was delay of 60 days in filing of the Appeal. I.A. No.882 of 2025 was filed for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal which was supported by an affidavit. The delay of 60 days in filing the 3 First Appeal No.564 of 2025 Appeal was condoned vide order dated 30.07.2025 subject to cost of Rs.3000/ to be deposited in Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and the same was deposited on 14.08.2025. M.A. was disposed off accordingly. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case of the Complainant which are necessary for disposal of the present Appeal are that the Complainant being aggrieved by the action of the OPs is not delivering the possession of the plot in time had filed the Complaint before the District Commission with the following prayer : "(i) Allow claim from Opposite Party no.1 @18% interest per annum on the total cost of the plot i.e. Rs.5389860/ (Fifty Three Lacs Eighty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty only) with effect from March 2018 le the date of final payment of the plot amount made to opposite party no.1 by the complainant, for delaying in demarcation and approval of map (Plot no. 280 at Sector 118119, Gateway City. Sector 118 119, Gateway City, Mohali); and (ii) Allow Claim from Opposite Party no. 1 of penal Interest charged (i.e 2% w.e.f 20.03
NILESHKUMAR RAMANBHAI PATEL Appearance: MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR ABHISHEK M MEHTA(3469) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 Date : 03/04/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Abhishek M. Mehta waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent. 2. The present writ application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs. "(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the common order dated 02.07.2022 passed by the learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below applications Exhs.241 and 242 filed by the petitioner, and further be pleased to allow the applications Exhs.241 and 242; Page 1 of 32 Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Wed Apr 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 09 21:28:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17981/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2025 undefined (B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the Hon'ble Trial Court to stay the proceedings of Special Civil Suit no. 290 of 2012 as well as the common order dated 02.07.2022 passed by the learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below applications Exhs.241 and 242 filed by the petitioner; and further be pleased to allow the applications Exhs.241 and 242; (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs, in favour of the petitioner, as deemed fit in the interest of justice." 3. The parties will be referred as per their original position in the suit. 4. Short facts: 4.1 Petitioner herein happens to be original defendant of Special Civil Suit No. 290 of 2012 filed by respondent hearing before the Court of learned 8 th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant. 4.2 Considering controversy involved in the present matter, no further facts a
Competition Commission of India 9th Floor, Office Block1 Kidwai Nagar (East) New Delhi 110023 Email: [email protected] ...Respondent Mob. No. +011 24664100 Cont'd.../ 2 Present For Appellants : Mr. Prashant Mehta & Ms. Prachi Kohli, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Mr. Mrityunjay Manchanda, Mr. Prerak Khurana, Ms. Aditi Sinha, Ms. Kokila Kumar, Advocates for R1/CCI. Ms. Monica Lakhanpal Gaggar, Advocate for CCI. J U D G E M EN T (22nd August, 2024) INDEVAR PANDEY, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) This appeal arises out of final order and judgment passed by the Competition Commission of India (Commission) on 04.04.2022 under Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter called the Act,) wherein the Commission held that the appellants had contravened Sections 3 (3) (c) and 3 (3) (d) r/w Section 3 (1) of the Act. The appeal has 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 tenders invited by the Department of Agriculture, Government of Uttar Pradesh for soil sample testing. The complaint pertains to alleged bidrigging 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. Competition Appeal (AT) No. 38 of 2022 3 3. It was stated in the complaint that the following parties participated in the aforesaid two tenders of soil testing in Uttar Pradesh: (i) M/s 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 Limited (vii) Atharva Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. (viii) M/s Newgen Computers (ix) Austere System Pvt. Ltd. 4. It was alleged in the complaint that the following participating bidders acted in a concerted manner in respect of Tender No. 1 and Tender No.2 and resorted to bidrigging in contravention of provisions of Section 3 (1) read with Section 3 (3) (d) of the Competition Act 2022 ('Act'): (i) M/s Yash Solutions, Bareilly (Unit of Yash Ornaments Pvt. Ltd.) ("Yash Solutions"/OP1) (ii) M/s Satish Kumar Agarwal, Bareilly ("M/s Satish Kumar"/OP 2) (iii) M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons, Bareilly ("M/s Siddhi Vinayak"/OP 3) (iv) M/s Saraswati Sales Corporation, Bareilly ("M/s Saraswati Sales"/OP4) (v) Austere System Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi ("Austere Systems"/OP5) 5. It was further alleged that there were numerous red flags in the documents submitted by the aforesaid entities for Tender No. 1 and Tender No. 2, but the tender inviting authorities preferred to ignore these aspects. M/s Yash Solutions emerged as the successful bidder for the award of work for Tender No. 1 and Tender No.2 for the regions Moradabad and Competition Appeal (AT) No. 38 of 2022 4 Bareilly, respectively, in the year 201819. It was also stated in the complaint, that in the previous year, i.e., 201718, M