abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ............................................................................................................................. Appearance: Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Jha Advocate for applicant. Mr. Prasanna Prasad Advocate for respondents. ............................................................................................................................. Reserved on : 23/06/2025 Pronounced on : 27/06/2025 ORDER Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi The present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred for short the CRPC) has been filed for quashment of FIR bearing No. 104/2019 registered at Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt under Section 7 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter for short referred „the PC Act‟) and Section 420 r/w 120 B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for short referred „the IPC‟) and subsequent proceedings thereto qua the applicant. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27062025 18:27:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHCIND:15273 2 MCRC No. 11443 of 2024 2. Brief facts as having emerged from the impugned FIR dated 25.05.2019 and investigation thereon are that Madhya Pradesh Government enacted Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva Guarantee Adhiniyam 2010 and on the basis of the said Act, the Revenue Department of Madhya Pradesh issued Circular bearing No. 909/2011/Lo.Se.Pr./61 dtd. 16.12.2011 for supplying copy of Khasra and Khatoni to the stake holders. By the above circular, on copying application fee of Rs.5/ was to be levied and affixed in the form of tickets and tickets of Rs.10/ for first page of the copy and on the subsequent page(s), tickets of Rs.5/ were to be affixed. The aforesaid circular dated 16.12.2011 was superseded by Circular dated 28.01.201. 3. A complaint by Shri Anand Mohan Vyas, President, Anti Corruption Sangthan, Indore was made to Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Indore to the effect that Head Copyist Narendra Narvariya and the then Patwari, Smt. Sapna Rathore conspiring with Tehsildar and other officials have misused their official capacity in the year 201314 by supplying certified copies of Khasra and Khatoni from one registration number to so many persons without affixing proper stamp duty and these copies were distributed by Head Copyist Narendra Narvariya by charging Rs.400/ to Rs.500/ from the applicants, thereby causing huge revenue loss to the government. This complaint was assigned to Deputy Superintendent of Police Daulat Singh G
1.The Chairman, Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries, & Commerce, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. 2.M/s.Social Beat Digital Marketing LLP., 403, 3rd Floor, Samson Towers, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent in MSEFCC/CR/184/2020, dated 19.07.2021, quash the order dated 19.07.2021 and received by the petitioner on 30.11.2021 and refer the claim of the second respondent in Online Application ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 1 of 14 W.P.No.3340 of 2022 No.TN02E0101940/S/00003 and registered as MSEFCC/CR/184/2020 to alternate dispute resolution by Arbitration in terms of S.18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2002. For Petitioner : Mr.Sundar Narayan For Respondents : Mrs.C.Meera Arumugam AGP for R1 Mr.Navarre Ebenezer Roy for R2 ORDER The petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 19.07.2021, which appears to have been received by the petitioner on 30.11.2021. The impugned order of the first respondent reads as under: PROCEEDINGS OF THE MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL CHENNAI REGION, TAMIL NADU HELD ON 19.07.2021. Present:Tmt Sigy Thomas Vaidhyan,I.A.S., Chairperson, MSE Facilitation Council, Chennai/Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. MSEFC/CR/184/2020 Online Application No.TN02E0101940/S/00003 Thiru Subrat Kumar Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ Nayak, Thiru.S.Ashok, Thiru.D.Gandhikumar Thiru.R.J.Ramesh Chief Manager, VicePresident, Regional Manager VicePresident, Indian Overseas Bank, TANSTIA, Tamilnadu Chennai, Council FISME, New Delhi 29, Guindy, Industrial member CouncilMember Investment CouncilMember Corporation Chennai. CouncilMember Petitioner M/s.Social Beat Digital Marketing LLP ____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 2 of 14 W.
The Enforcement Directorate …Respondent J U D G M E N T A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. By these appeals the order of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 5th May, 2017, rejecting the Bail Application No.119 of 2017 and Criminal M.B. No.121 of 2017 has been assailed. The appellant was arrested on 28th December, 2016 in Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR connection with ECIR/18/DZ­II/2016/AD(RV) registered under Date: 2017.11.10 20:40:13 IST Reason: Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money­Laundering Act, 2 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2002”). The said ECIR was registered on 26th December, 2016 as a sequel to FIR No.205/2016 dated 25th December, 2016 in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 468, 471, 188 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short). The said FIR was registered by the Crime Branch of Delhi Police, New Delhi. The ECIR, however, has been registered at the instance of Assistant Director (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement, empowered to investigate the offences punishable under the Act of 2002. 2. The appellant first approached the Additional Sessions Judge­02, South East Saket Court, New Delhi for releasing him on bail by way of an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 45 of the Act of 2002. The said bail application came to be rejected vide judgment dated 7th January, 2017 by the said Court. The appellant thereafter approached the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi by way of Bail Application No.119 of 2017 and an interlocutory application filed therein, being Criminal M.B. No.121 of 2017. The High Court independently considered the 3 merits of the arguments but eventually rejected the prayer for bail vide impugned judgment dated 5th May, 2017. 3. The ECIR has been registered against Ashish Kumar, Raj Kumar Goel and other unknown persons for offences punishable under Sections 3/4 of the Act of 2002 on the basis of information/material, as evident from the predicate offence registered by P.S. Crime Branch, Delhi against the named accused and unknown accused for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 188 and 120B of IPC, being FIR No.205/2016 dated 25th December, 2016. The relevant facts noted in the ECIR read thus: “A. It is reported that during the course of investigation of Case FIR No.242/16 u/s 420, 467,468,471, 120­B IPC, PS C.R. Park, Delhi, it is revealed that Accused Raj Kumar Goel along with associates are engaged into earning profits by routing money into various accounts by using forged documents and thereby receiving commission from the prospective clients who either need money by cheque or in cash. In order to obtain large profits, accused Raj Kumar Goel and few of his associates have opened many Bank Accounts in Kotak Mahindra and ICICI Bank at Naya Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. B. On 08.11.2016, the Government if India announced demoneti
Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Respondent No. 1, Foulk's Compound, Anaimedu, Salem 626 001. AND (i) Service Tax Appeal No. 164/2011 (CGST & CE, Salem) (Arising out of Order in Original No. 06/2010 (Commissioner) dated 13.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem) (ii) Service Tax Appeal No. 40524/2014 (CGST & CE, Salem) (Arising out of Order in Original No. 11/2013 dated 20.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem) (iii) Service Tax Appeal No.40525/2014 (CGST & CE, Salem) (Arising out of Order in Original No. 14/2013 dated 22.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem) 2 (iv) Service Tax Appeal No.42545/2014 (CGST & CE, Salem) (Arising out of Order in Original No. 11/2014 dated 20.6.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem) Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Appellant No. 1, Foulk's Compound, Anaimedu, Salem 626 001. Vs. M/s. RPP Infra Projects Ltd. Respondent (formerly RPP Constructions Pvt. Ltd.) S.F. No. 454, Raghupathynaiken Palayam Poondurai Road, Railway Colony, Erode, Salem 600 032. APPEARANCE: Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate for the AppellantAssessee Shri P.R.V. Ramanan, Special Counsel & Shri M. Ambe, DC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Hon'ble Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order Nos. 4056440575/2024 Date of Hearing : 05.03.2024 Date of Decision: 30.05.2024 Per M. Ajit Kumar, These appeals filed by the Rival Parties involve common issues and hence they were heard together and are disposed by this common order. M/s. RPP Infra Projects Ltd., (RPP) are providers of taxable service and are registered with the Department for providing service under the categories of: (i) Commercial or Industrial Construction Service (CICS) (ii) Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service (ECIS) (iii) Interior Decorator Service, and (iv) Construction of Residential Complex Service There are 8 appeals filed by the assessee i.e. M/s RPP and 4 departmental appeals being disposed off through this common order. The demands have been raised under 9 categories of services against which both RPP and the department are in appeal before this Tribunal. Since a large number of individual projects are involved in all the appeals put together, its proposed to group the projects service wise for ease of discussion and decision on the legal issues involved. 3 2. The index of issues d
Raj Kumar Sahani & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Mr. Palak Kalra, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Ms. Namrata Saraogi, Mr. Rajeev Chowdhary, Ms. Priyanka Bhatt, Advocates for R1. Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Mr. Gaurav Rana, Mr. Ajitesh Kumar and Mr. Shresth Garg, Advocates for R2. Mr. Gurjot Singh, Advocate for R3. With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.256 & 257 of 2024 (Arising out of Order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench, CourtIV in I.A. No.4173/2023 and I.A. No.5458/2022 in CP (IB) No.983/ND/2020) IN THE MATTER OF: Bishwanath Traders & Investment Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Ashish Singh, Resolution Professional of Vibrant Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gurjot Singh, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Ms. Namrata Saraogi, Mr. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) Nos. 253254, 256257 & 442443 of 2024 1 Rajeev Chowdhary, Ms. Priyanka Bhatt, Advocates for R2. Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Mr. Palak Kalra, Advocates for RP. Mr. Ashutosh Gupta and Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocates for R3. With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 442 & 443 of 2024 & I.A. No.2763, 2764 of 2024 (Arising out of Order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench, CourtIV in I.A. No.4173/2023 and I.A. No.5458/2022 in CP (IB) No.983/ND/2020) IN THE MATTER OF: Committee of Creditors of Vibrant Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Raj Kumar Sahani & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Mr. Gaurav Rana, Mr. Ajitesh Kumar and Mr. Shresth Garg, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Ms. Namrata Saraogi, Mr. Rajeev Chowdhary, Ms. Priyanka Bhatt, Advocates for R1. Mr. Gurjot Singh, Advocate for R3. Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Mr. Palak Kalra, Advocates for RP. Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rajshree Chaudhary and Ms. Diksha Dadu, Advocates for Interveners in I.A. No.2763/2024. JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. These Appeal(s) by Resolution Professional ("RP") of M/s Vibrant Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.; the Committee of Creditors ("CoC") of Vibrant Buildwell Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) Nos. 253254, 256257 & 442443 of 2024 2 Pvt. Ltd. and Successful Resolution Applicant ("SRA") of the Corporate Debtor ("CD")has been filed against the same order dated 24.01.2024 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, CourtIV in I.A. No.4173 of 2023 filed by Raj Kumar Sahani, Suspended Director and Shareholder of the CD and IA No.5458 of 2022 filed by RP for approval of Resolution Plan. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order allowed IA No.4173 of 2023 accepting the objection raised
PTC Software (India) Private Limited, Survey No.15, MarisoftII, Vadgaonsheri, Kalyaninagar, Pune 411 014 PAN : AABCC1268J .... यथ / Respondent C.O. No.38/PUN/2015 (Arising out of ITA No.572/PUN/2015) िनधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 201011 PTC Software (India) Private Limited, Survey No.15, MarisoftII, Vadgaonsheri, Kalyaninagar, Pune 411 014 PAN : AABCC1268J .... Cross Objector Vs. DCIT, Circle4, Pune .... यथ / Respondent आयकर अपील सं . / ITA No.352/PUN/2015 िनधारण वष / Assessment Year : 201011 PTC Software (India) Private Limited, Survey No.15, MarisoftII, Vadgaonsheri, Kalyaninagar, Pune 411 014 PAN : AABCC1268J .... अपीलाथ /Appellant Vs. DCIT, Circle4, Pune .... थ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ashwin Taneja Revenue by : Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT सुनवाई क तारीख / घोषणा क तारीख / Date of Hearing : 24.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 27.10.2017 2 ITA Nos.352, 572/PUN/2015 and CO No.38/PUN/2015 PTC Software (India) Pvt. Ltd. आदेश / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : There are 3 appeals under consideration against the orders/directions of the AO/TPO/DRP for the A.Y. 201011. 2. In the Revenue's appeal, three grounds are raised and all the three grounds revolve around the issue relating to the Transfer Pricing Adjustments and questions the relief granted by the DRP to the assessee. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are extracted as under : "1. The DRP erred to exclude FCS Software Ltd. from the list of comparable companies, when Delhi ITAT has held in the case of Navisite India (P) to be a software company. 2. The DRP erred by accepting assessee's contention that comparables selected by it after conducting TP study should be considered when Rule 10D(4) maintains that documents and information should exists latest by the 'specified date' specified in s.92F94, i.e. the due date for filing the ROI. 3. The DRP erred to exclude Eclerx Services Limited from the list of comparable as it is KPO company, when CBDTs Circular No.890 (E) dated 26092000 clearly mentions that KPO services are also information technology enabled products of services." 3. Similarly, in the assessee's appeal, the assessee raised 4 grounds, which has many subgrounds, questioning the Transfer Pricing Adjustment amounting to Rs.69,68,175/ confirmed by the DRP. All the grounds raised by the assessee are extracted as under : "On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law : 1. The Ld Assessing Officer ('AO') pursuant to the directions of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred in rejecting the benchmarking approach adopted/contemporaneous documentation maintained by the appellant and thereby making a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 69,68,175 to the income of the appellant by holding that the international transactions pertaining to provision of customer support back office services ("ITES Services') to the associated enterprise ('AE') are not at arm's length under the Incometax Act, 1961 (the Act'). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in modifying the benchmarking analysis, as conducted by the appellant using Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM') for benchmarking its international 3
1. Sh. Vineet Sehgal R/o H. no. C­126, First Floor, Kilokari Village, Ashram, New Delhi ­110014. Also at : Sehgal Electric Works, 130 Ground Floor & Basement, Kilokari Village Ashra, New Delhi­110014. 2. Sh. Varun Chaudhary. R/o A­1/25, Lajpat Nagar­II, New Delhi­24. 3. M/s Stage Art Event & Wedding Planning. Having its office at B­3, Ground Floor, Near Krishna Market, Lajpat Nagar­I, New Delhi­110024. (through defendant no. 1&2) ......Defendants. Date of Institution : 16.11.2018 Date of order Reserved on : 05.08.2020 Date of Decision : 20.08.2020 (Mohit Arora Vs Vineet Sehgal, CS(comm) no. 36/18) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court­01) South­East, Saket, Delhi:20.08.2020 Page no..........1 Suit for recovery of Rs. 6,57,225/­ (Proceedings through Video Conferencing) JUDGMENT 1. In this suit for recovery, the plaintiff M/s. Stage n Design alleged that the, Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 approached the plaintiff at his office on 28.01.2016 and informed that they are running their business under the name and style of "Stage Art Event & Wedding Planning" ­Defendant No. 3 and popularly known as M/s. Stage Art Events" for the purposes of carrying on their business. In pursuance to their representations made to the Plaintiff, Defendant Nos. 1& 2 told the Plaintiff that they would be requiring the services of the Plaintiff for organizing the events at New Friends Colony, New Delhi on 1st and 2nd February, 2016 and further on 12th February, 2016 at Shiv Shakti Mandir, Kilokari, near Ashram, New Delhi respectively. 2. On 2 February, 3 February and 4 February, 2016, the Defendant Nos. 1& 2 transferred the amount of RS 1,50,000/­ i.e (Mohit Arora Vs Vineet Sehgal, CS(comm) no. 36/18) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court­01) South­East, Saket, Delhi:20.08.2020 Page no..........2 Rs. 50,000 for each services to be availed by defendants from the plaintiff on 2nd, 3rd and 4th February 2016. As detailed at page no. 5 of the plaint , the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ was deposited towards advance payment for providing the requisite services to the defendants for organizing their events. It was assured by the defendant that the remaining balance amount would be cleared after the events were over. 3. Plaintiff provided the required services to the satisfaction of the defendant on 1st and 2nd February, 2016 at New Friends Colony and also on 12th February,2016 at Shiv Shakti Mandir, Kilokari, near Ashram, New Delhi. It was duly appreciated and commended by the defendant no.1 &2 for the successful and graceful end of the events. Thereafter, plaintiff raised two bills i.e bill no. 635 and 638 dated 30.03.2016 for an amount of Rs. 5,15,250/­ and Rs. 2,91,975/­ respectively and sent the same to the defendants for payment at the office of defendant no.3. After deducting the amount of advance payment of Rs. 1,50,000/­ defendant was bound to make the balance payment of Rs. 6,57,225/­. Defendants did not make the payment of balance (Mohit Arora Vs Vineet Sehgal, CS(comm) no. 36/18) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) District Judge (Commercial Court­01) South­East, Saket, Delhi:20.08.2020
1.Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways, Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi. 2.Chief Engineer, V.O.Chidambaranar Port Authority, Administrative Office, Harbour Estate, Tuticorin. 3.Superintending Engineer, Civil Engineering Department V.O.Chidambaranar Port Authority, Administrative Office, Harbour Estate, Tuticorin. _________ Page 1 of 30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 06:16:47 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.33167 of 2025 4.Executive Engineer, Civil Engineering Department, V.O.Chidambaranar Port Authority, Administrative Office, Harbour Estate, Tuticorin. 5.M/s.Va Tech WABAG Ltd Ramky Infrastructure Ltd (Joint Venture), WABAG House, No.17, 200 Feet Thoraipakkam Pallavaram Main Road, Sunnambu Kolathur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 117, India. Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records of the 3rd respondent in order bearing Nil dated 17.11.2025 in respect of Notice Inviting Tender No.R01CE/RCM and BMR/202526/D.886 dated 02.04.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct Respondents 2 to 4 to consider the petitioner's financial bid. For Petitioner : Mr.Srinath Sridevam Senior Counsel for Mr.P.M.N.Bhagavath Krishnan For R1 : Mr.K.Maharajan Central Government Standing Counsel For R2R4 : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar _________ Page 2 of 30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 06:16:47 pm ) W.P.(MD) No.33167 of 2025 ORDER The petitioner in the above writ petition seeks to quash the order of the 3rd respondent dated 17.12.2025 in respect of Notice Inviting Tender R01CE/RCM and BMR/202526/D.886 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the petitioner's financial bid. 2. The facts of the case : 2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that on 02.04.2025, the 2 nd respondent had issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) calling for contractors to establish a 3 MLD desalination plant at Thoothukudi Port based on sea water reverse osmosis Post. As per the tender notifi
Bombay High Court Jai Ganesh Sra Chs (Prop) And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra And 3 Ors on 28 July, 2016 JudgmentWP.2270.2014.doc ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2270 OF 2014 1. Jai Ganesh SRA CHS (prop.) } having its office at Kanu } Compound, General Arunkumar } Vaidya Marg, Malad (East), } Mumbai 400 097, through its } Secretary, Mr. Vishwanath } Dharmaji Kadam } } 2. Arun Shantaram Sakpal } Chief Promoter of Jai Ganesh SRA } CHS (Prop.) having his office at } Kanu Compound, General ig } Arunkumar Vaidya Marg, } Malad (E), Mumbai 400 097 } Petitioners versus 1. State of Maharashtra } Government Pleader, } Original Side } } 2. Chief Executive Officer, } Slum Rehabilitation Authority } having his office at } Administrative Building, } Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (E), } Mumbai 400 051 } } 3. Deputy Collector, } Slum Rehabilitation Authority } having his office at } Administrative Building, } Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (E), } Mumbai 400 051 } } 4. Controller of Slums, Greater } Mumbai having his office at } th Administrative Building, 7 floor, } Government Colony, Bandra (E), } Mumbai 400 051 } Page 1 of 52 J.V.Salunke,PA ::: Uploaded on 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on 28/07/2016 23:58:59 ::: JudgmentWP.2270.2014.doc Dr. Milind Sathe Senior Advocate with Ms. Shamima Taly i/b. M/s. S. Mahomedbhai and Co. for the petitioners. Mr. M. D. Naik AGP for respondent no. 1. Mr. Jagdish G. Reddy (Aradwad) for respondent nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKARJOSHI, JJ. Reserved on 4 th May, 2016 Pronounced on 28 th July, 2016 JUDGMENT : (Per S. C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are claiming the following declaration: "(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that: (i) ..... (ii) ..... (iii) the provisions of the Slum Act will prevail over the provisions of section 36A of the MLR Code insofar as there is any conflict between the provisions; (iv) a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme can be implemented on land declared as a Slum Rehabilitation Area under section 3C of the Slum Act even if such land is owned by a member of a Scheduled Tribe; (v) ..... (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Page 2 of 52 J.V.Salunke,PA ::: Uploaded on 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on 28/07/2016 23:58:59 ::: JudgmentWP.2270.2014.doc Constitution calling for the records and proceedings relating to the notification dated 7th August, 2012 (at Exhib