abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
M/s. E4E Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (formerly ISeva Systems Pvt. Ltd.) Maruthi Chambers, 17/4C, Rupena Agrahara, Hosur Road, Bangalore560 068. ..... Respondent. I.T.(T.P.) A. No.1783/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year 200809) (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By : Smt. Chandana Ramachandran, CITIII (D.R) Date of Hearing : 22.09.2015. Date of Pronouncement : 4.11.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : These are cross appeals, one by the assessee and the other by Revenue, directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)IV, Bangalore dt.8.10.2013 for Assessment Year 200809. 2. The facts of the case, briefly, are as under : 2 IT(T.P) A Nos.1765 & 1783/Bang/2013 2.1.1 The assessee (formerly known as iSeva Systmes P. Ltd.) is engaged in the business of providing customer relationship management services and related Business Process Outsourcing ('BPO') service. For Assessment Year 200809, the assessee filed its return of income on 30.9.2008 declaring total income of Rs.1,42,99,895. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and the case was subsequently taken up for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer, on observing that the assessee had reported international transactions in the year under consideration, made a reference under Section 92CA of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') to examine and compute the Arm's Length Price ('ALP')of the assessee's international transactions with its Associated Enterprises ('AEs'). 2.1.2 For Assessment Year under consideration, the assessee had filed a T.P. Study in which it adopted Transactional Net Margin Method ('TNMM') as the Most Appropriate Method ('MAM') and selected 13 comparables whose average profit margin on cost was 13.65%. As the margin of the assessee was higher at 15.26%, the assessee held its international transactions in the ITES segment to be at arm's length. The TPO after examining the assessee's T.P. Study, rejected the same and proceeded to carry out a fresh search for comparables. The TPO accepted the assessee's adoption of TNMM as the MAM and after carrying out his search and considering the objections put forth by the assessee, selected the following 20 companies as comparables to the assessee in which 5 of the companies chosen as comparables by the assessee was retained. 3 IT(T.P) A Nos.1765 & 1783/Bang/2013 Sl.No. Name of the company OP/TC % 1. Accentia Technologies Ltd. (Seg.) 41.77 2. Acropetal Technologies Ltd. (Seg.) 35.30 3. Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd.(Earlier known as 4.00 Transworks Information Services Ltd.) 4. ASit C Mehta Financial Services Ltd. (Seg.) 9.42 5. Caliber Point Business Solutions Ltd. 10.97 6. Coral Hubs Ltd. (Earlier Vishal Information Technologies 50.68 Ltd.) 7. Cosmic Global Ltd. 23.30 8. Crossdomain Solutions Ltd. 27.03 9. Datamatics Financial Services Ltd. (Seg.) 29.11 10. E4e Healthcare Solutions Ltd. (Formerly known as NIttany 18.54 Outsourcing Services Pvt. Ltd.) 11. Eclerx Services Ltd. 58.80 12. Genesys International Corporation Ltd. 47.40 13. Infosys BPO Ltd. 19.66 14. IServices India Pvt. Ltd.
Delhi High Court Baljeet Singh vs C B I on 22 March, 2024 $~ * % Reserved on: December 07, 2023 Decided on: March 22, 2024 + CRL.A. 630/2015 ARUN KUMAR GURJAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Ms. Soughanya Shankaran, Mr. Ayush Shrivastava, Mr. Madhav Aggarwal, Ms. Anandita Rana and Ms. P. Barsaiyan, Advocates V CENTRAL BURAEU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, SPP for CBI with Ms. Khushal Saini, Advocate + CRL.A. 643/2015 BALJEET SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Tiwari, Mr. Anil Kumar, Mr. Siddharth Singh and Ms. Sanskriti, Advocates V CBI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, SPP Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 1 17:36:55 for CBI with Ms. Khushal Saini, Advocate CORAM HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN JUDGMENT 1. The present appeals are filed appeal under section 374 read with 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") for setting aside the judgment dated 20.05.2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment") and order on sentence dated 21.05.2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned order") passed by the court of Sh. Sanjeev Jain, Special Judge (PC Act)/CBI03, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in case titled as CBI V Arun Kumar Gurjar & another in CC no. 50/2012 arising out of RC bearing no. CBI/AC I/RCA0003/2010 dated 29.12.2010 registered by CBI, ACU (I), New Delhi under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC") read with section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "PC Act") and substantive offence under section 7 of the PC Act and for acquittal of the appellants. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 2 17:36:55 2. The factual background of the case as appearing from charge sheet is that Pawan Aggarwal, Partner of M/s Madhya Pradesh Vanijya Company, 3958/2, Naya Bazar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") made a written complaint on the basis of which
3. Mr. Vaibhav Dabas, ld. counsel for petitioner, during the course of arguments referred to and relied upon the following judgments: (i) Design Services Vs. Delhi Development Authority MANU/SC/0099/2015. (ii) ONGC Ltd. Vs. Saw Pipes (2003) 5 SCC 705. (iii) Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.2021 SCC Online SC 695. (iv) Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Company Ltd. Vs. National Highways Authority of India (2019) 15 SCC 131. (v) Amazing Research Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Krishna Pharma 2023 SCC Online Deli 1498. (vi) Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd.Vs. Eastern Engineering Enterprises (1999) 9 SCC 283. (vii) Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Friends Coal Carbonisation (2006) 4 SCC 445. (ix) Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs.Deccan Chronicle Holding Ltd. 2021 SCC Online Bom 834. (x) Finolex Cables Ltd. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL) 2017 (3) ARBLR 187 (Delhi). 4. Dr. Swaroop George, ld. counsel for respondent, during the course of arguments relied upon and referred to the following judgments: (i) Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.2021 SCC Online SC 695. (ii) National Highways Authority of India Vs. M/s. Oriental Structure Engineers Ltd. (2013) 198 DLT 738. OMP (COMM) 37/2019 2/12 Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. M/s. Bhatia Engineering Company (iii) Vishal Engineers & Builders Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2012 (1) ARBLR 253 (Delhi). (iv) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. BWL Ltd. 2011 (123) DRJ 544. 5. The case set by respondent (claimant) before Sole Arbitrator was that respondent is a micro enterprise registered with the office of Commissioner of Industries, Delhi under The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act). Petitioner allotted the tender for supply of simplex strainers. Respondent company submitted its bid and after numerous rounds of negotiations purchase order dated 19.09.2011 for a total price of Rs. 30,62,500/ was placed upon respondent by the petitioner. As per purchase order, respondent was required to make delivery of simplex strainers within six months. It was mentioned in the purchase order that 90 % of payment is to be made at the time of delivery and balance 10% as per General Conditions of Contract (GCC) clause 8.1.2.2 after submission of Material Received Certificate (MRC) issued by project site engineer and submission of final documents as applicable duly certified by PEM (Engineering). After manufacturing ordered quantity of strainers was completed by respondent, petitioner issued Material Dispatch Clearance Certificate (MDCC) dated 17.11.2012 for dispatch of material. Respondent dispatched strainers worth Rs. 30,62,500/ vide invoice no. 22 dated 07.12.2012 and dispatched all relevant documents to the concerned bank for collection of payment as per terms of purchase order. On 04.01.2013, petitioner sent an email to respondent asking for reduction of collection amount for payment of Rs. 24,75,192.00 and further asked for bank guarantee and other documents. Respondent accordingly sent letter OMP (COMM) 37/2019
Madras High Court Swiss Garniers Genexiaa Sciences Pvt ... vs Tsa Process Equipments Pvt Ltd on 3 June, 2025 Arb.OP.(comdiv) No.442 of 2023 DATED: 03.06.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.442 of 2023 Swiss Garniers Genexiaa Sciences Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Authorised Signatory Mr.Suresh Lal, Assistant ManagerLegal, Chennai. .. Petitioner vs TSA Process Equipments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. .. Respondent Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed seeking to set aside the arbitral award dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Sole Arbitrator. For Petitioner : Mr.Surya Teja SS Nalla for M/s.Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan Attorneys For Respondent : Mr.A.Ramesh Kumar 1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm ) Arb.OP.(comdiv) No.442 of 2023 ORDER This petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short “the Act”) challenging the impugned award dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) (in short “Council”) under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (in short “MSMED Act”). 2. The respondent claims to have supplied materials based on purchase orders placed by the petitioner. According to the respondent, certain sums of money are due and payable to them by the petitioner for the supplies made by them. The respondent claimed that they are registered under the MSMED Act and therefore, they are entitled to make a reference to the Council for the recovery of the amount due and payable by the petitioner to the respondent. Accordingly, they made a reference to the Council as per the provisions of the MSMED Act. As per the provisions of the MSMED Act, conciliation proceedings were initiated by the Council, but, the conciliation failed. Thereafter, the 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 08:57:11 pm ) Arb.OP.(comdiv) No.442 of 2023 arbitration commenced and both the parties to the dispute participated in the arbitration. Under the impugned award dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Council, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,51,064/ to the respondent along with compound interest as per Section 16 of the MSMED Act till realisation of the amount by the respondent. Before the Council, the petitioner had made a counterclaim against the respondent, as, according to them, the goods supplied to them were defective and therefore, they have made a counterclaim of Rs.17,99,533/ against the respondent in this petition. 3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned award on the following grounds: (a) Eventhough a counterclaim was made by the petitioner, the Council under the impugned award has failed to consider the same and the impugned award is a nonspeaking award with re
Delhi High Court Montecarlo Limited & Anr. vs National High Speed Rail Corporation ... on 23 August, 2021 $~ * % Reserved on: 02.06.2021 Pronounced on: 23.08.2021 + W.P.(C) 5127/2021 MONTECARLO LIMITED & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Parth J. Contractor, Mr. Monish Panda, Mr. Mrinal Bharat Ram, Advs. versus NATIONAL HIGH SPEED RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gagan Anand, Ms. Sadiqua Fatima, Mr. Shahbaz Ahmad, Advs. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH J U D G M E N T OF THE COURT CM APPL. 17072/2021(EXEMPTION) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 5127 & CM APPLs 15722/2021 & 17071/2021 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner to assail the rejection of its bid in relation to the Bid Package No. MAHSR8 issued by the Respondent for the ―Design and Construction of Civil and Building Works for the Depot on Design Build Lump Sum Price Basis for Double Line High Speed Railway involving works Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 5127/2021 Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH Page 1 of 52 ROHELLA Signing Date:23.08.2021 18:29 for Site Formation, Abutment, Retaining Walls, Roadbed for track, Box Culvert, Roads, Cable Duct, Foundations of OHE Masts, Piping, Drainage, Water Supply, Water Harvesting, Fire Fighting, Landscraping, Boundary Wall, General Inspection Train Shed, Maintenance Depot and other Associated Works at Sabarmati between MAHSR Km. 507.599 and MAHSR Km. 509. 726 in the State of Gujarat for the Project of Construction of MumbaiAhmedabad High Speed Rail‖, (hereinafter referred to as "the Project") at the technical stage, vide communication dated 27.04.2021 and 28.04.2021. The petitioner also assails the Notification dated 28.04.2021 whereby the results of the Financial Bid Opening was notified. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider its bid for the aforesaid Package. 2. The case set up by the Petitioner No.1 is that the Petitioner No.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of infrastructure, construction and development with operation diversified across highways, railways, buildings and factories, mining, energy, infrastructure etc. Petitioner No.2 is the Director of Petitioner No.1. The Respondent, National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited has been incorporated with the object to finance, construct, maintain and manage the High upcoming Speed Rail Corridor in India, and is a "Special Purpose Vehicle" (SPV) with equity participation from the Central Government through Ministry of Railways, Government of Gujarat, and Government of Maharashtra. 3. The Respondent issued the Tender Notice on 22.10.2020 calling for bids from bidders for the Project. The timelines indicated and prescribed by the Respondent were as under: ―b. Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 5127/2021 Digitally Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH
Delhi High Court M/S. Unicon Engineers vs M/S. Jindal Steel And Power Ltd. on 26 July, 2022 $~45 * Date of Decision: 26th July, 2022 + OMP(ENF.)(COMM.) 140/2021 & EX.APPL.(OS) 988/2021 M/S. UNICON ENGINEERS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Senthil Jagadeesam, Ms. Mrinal Kanwar & Mr. Sajal Jain, Advocates. versus M/S. JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD. ..... Judgment Debtor Through: Mr. Saket Sikri, Mr. Naman Joshi, Mr. Yuvraj Francis, Mr. Ajay Pal Khullar & Ms. Ekta Gupta, Advocates. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL) % 1. The petitioner seeks execution of an "order" dated 22.09.2020 passed by the Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Coimbatore Region ["the Council"]. The proceedings have been filed on the premise that the said order is an arbitral award capable of execution under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ["the Act"]. 2. The petitioner is a "small enterprise" within the meaning of the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ["the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL OMP(ENF.)(COMM.) 140/2021 Page 1 of 11 Signing Date:28.07.2022 11:45:57 MSMED Act"]. The respondent issued a work order dated 29.05.2015 in favour of the petitioner for erection of pollution control equipment. The value of the work awarded was to the tune of ₹6.47 crores. The claim of the petitioner was that the respondent failed in making timely payment on account of which, a sum of ₹1,76,45,947/ became due from the respondent. It proceeded under Section 18 of the MSMED Act by making a complaint before the Council constituted under Section 20 thereof. 3. The proceedings resulted in the impugned order dated 22.09.2020. The order narrates the proceedings over six sittings, culminating in the hearing held on 22.09.2020. The proceeding of the 6th hearing held on 22.09.2020 are summarised in the following terms: "During the hearing held on 22.9.2020 through Video Conference, the Petitioner was present and represented by Thiru P. Ponram, Managing Partner and the Respondent was represented by Thiru Sidharth Tiwary and Thiru Akshat Bajbai. This was the 6th hearing. After lapse of 6 hearings there is no conciliation among the Petitioner and Respondent. The Petitioner Enterprise has submitted a revised due amount of Rs.1,67,37,737/ vide their letter No.FIN/107/202021 dated 16.7.2020, and the revised claim for cost is Rs.5,41,35,658/ Subsequently, the Respondent has also acknowledge the outstanding due of Rs.167,37,737/ vide their e mail dated 22.9.2020." [Emphasis supplied] 4. The Council has thereafter held as follows: Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL OMP(ENF.)(COMM.) 140/2021 Page 2 of 11 Signing Date:28.07.2022 11:45:57 "Based on a detailed and critical examination of the claims made by the Petitioner along with available
Mr. Durlabh Garcha (Deceased) Through his Legal Heir Mr. Gangan Garcha, S/o Late Mr. Durlabh Garch, H.No.1237, Sector33C, Chandigarh160 020, Punjab. ......Defendant (Ex Parte) Date of filing of suit : 21.09.2024 Arguments heard on : 11.07.2025 Date of Judgment : 22.07.2025 JUDGMENT: Raj 1. Plaintiff M/s Premier Green Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Kumar Tripathi filed the present suit against defendant on 21.09.2024 for seeking Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Tripathi recovery of an amount of Rs.6,08,789/(Rupees Six Lakhs Eight Date: 2025.07.22 10:44:01 +0530 Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Nine only) as on 20.07.2024 CS (COMM.) No.3724/2024 (M/s Premier Green Innovations Pvt.Ltd. vs. Durlabh Garcha) Page 1 of 9 along with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 21.07.2024 till its realization and cost of the suit. Factual background of the case 2. Plaintiff Company deals in manufacturing and trading of alcoholic beverages and Ethanol, ENA etc. 3. Plaintiff is doing the business of manufacturing and selling of different kinds of country liquor and Indian made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and having its unit at Plot No.1, Industrial Area, PhaseIII, Sansarpur Terrace, Tehsil Jaswan Kotla, District Kangra, H.P. and doing the business of selling different kinds of country liquor and IMFL from their registered office at F33/3, Okhla Industrial Area, PhaseII, SouthEast, Delhi110 020. 4. Defendant is carrying its business of trading and selling the liquor through his three proprietorship firms namely M/s Royal Wine Enterprises, M/s Royal Wine & M/s Royal Enterprises. He was maintaining a running account with plaintiff company since 20212022 and acknowledging his liability towards plaintiff company from time to time while making part payments in the accounts which is showing a debit balance of Rs. 4,25,572/ being principal amount besides interest. 5. Defendant through his authorized representative had approached the plaintiff by visiting its registered office and placed order for supply of different kinds of liquor. Plaintiff raised the Raj bills against supply of liquor upon defendant, who made part Kumar Tripathi payments towards the bills while admitting his liability. Digitally signed 6. Plaintiff avers that since the liquor is covered under by Raj Kumar Tripathi Date: 2025.07.22 10:44:09 +0530 The Excise & Taxation Act, the tax invoices and the CS (COMM.) No.3724/2024 (M/s Premier Green Innovations Pvt.Ltd. vs. Durlabh Garcha) Page 2 of 9 transportation of the material was to be accompanied with excise delivery pass duly issued by Department of Excise and Taxation. 7. It is averred that the defendant was maintaining a running account with plaintiff company since 202122 and acknowledge
Madras High Court A.Faseela vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 December, 2022 W.P. No. 24601 of 2022 RESERVED ON : 11.11.2022 PRONOUNCED ON : 14.12.2022 THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN W.P.No.24601 of 2022 & W.M.P. No.23575 of 2022 A.Faseela Petitioner v 1 The State represented by its The Deputy Inspector General of Prison Coimbatore Range Coimbatore Central Prison Coimbatore 641 018 2 The Superintendent Central Prison Coimbatore 641 018 Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order bearing No.8934/Tha.Ku.3/2022, dated 11.05.2022, passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to grant ordinary leave for 40 days without escort to the detenu, Mohamed Azam, S/o.John Basha, aged about 44 years, convict No.10709, confined in the Central Prison, Coimbatore. 1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 24601 of 2022 For petitioner Dr.S.Manoharan For respondents Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER P.N.PRAKASH, J. The petitioner is the wife of one Mohamed Azam, S/o John Basha (Convict Prisoner No.10709), who is presently lodged in the Central Prison, Coimbatore. 2 The petitioner addressed a representation dated 05.05.2022 seeking a month's ordinary leave for her husband under the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 (for short “the Sentence Suspension Rules”) on the ground that she suffers from an eye ailment and requires the presence of her husband to mobilise funds for her eye treatment as well for eking out their family's livelihood, in terms of Rule 20(i) and (iv), ibid. The said representation has been rejected by the Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore, the second respondent, by order dated 11.05.2022, challenging which, the present writ petition has been filed, besides seeking a direction to the respondents to grant 40 days ordinary 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No. 24601 of 2022 leave to Mohamed Azam. 3 Heard Dr. S. Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the earlier Benches, both Single Benches and Division Benches, except this Division Bench, have been granting leave munificently. In support of the said submission, he placed reliance on the following orders: i. M. Uma Manickam v State (Single Bench)1 ii. A. Fathima v The State (Single Bench)2 iii. Pooranam v The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai (Division Bench)3 iv. Mohammed Ghouse v The State (Divisi