abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
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.15203/2019 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.15203/2019 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 has 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.15203/2019 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 Cheque bearing No.702880 dated 14.03.2019 for a 5 C.C.15203/2019 sum of Rs.02,50,000/ for encashment through his banker, but it returned unpaid with banker's endorsement dated 10.05.2019 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
Madras High Court M/S.Megashield Protective Coats vs The Chair Person on 31 October, 2023 W.P. No. 525 of 2022 DATED : 31.10.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU W.P. No. 525 of 2022 and W.M.P. No. 563 of 2022 M/s.Megashield Protective Coats Rep. by its Proprietor, T.Giridharan 11A, Engineering College Road Thirupparankundram, Madurai – 625 003. … Petitioner vs 1. The Chair Person Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council Chennai Region, Tamil Nadu Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. 2. M/s. Rotopolymers & Chemicals No.125, S.No. 8/1 & 10/2B Orakkadu Village Sholavaram Chennai – 600 067. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 2050, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order dated 19.07.2021 in MSEFC/CR/356/2019, Online Application No.TN24B0021328/S/00003, passed by the First Respondent herein and to quash the same. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/9 W.P. No. 525 of 2022 For Petitioner : Mr. S.Subbiah, Senior Counsel assisted by A.V.Arun for M/s. Elizebth Ravi For Respondents : Mr. S.Yashwanth, Additional Government Pleader (for R1) Mr. M.Desingu (for R2) ORDER Heard Mr.S.Subbiah, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. S.Yashwath, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the First Respondent and Mr. M.Desingu, Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2. The Second Respondent had made a claim in Case No. MSEFC/CR/356/2019 before the First Respondent under Section 18(1) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MSMED Act' for short), claiming payment of the principal amount of Rs. 9,51,474/ from the Petitioner towards value of goods supplied with interest calculated in terms of that Act, in which an order dated 19.07.2021 was passed holding that the Petitioner was liable to pay the principal amount of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/9 W.P. No. 525 of 2022 Rs. 9,51,474/ together with compounded interest with monthly rests at three times of the Bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India as stipulated in Sections 15 and 16 of the MSMED Act, 2006 from the appointed due dates respectively till payment, which is assailed in this Writ Petition. 3. In response to the contentions raised by the Second Respondent that if the Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, he has to only resort to filing of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the A & C Act' for short) to have it set aside as an arbitral award, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s. Vijeta Construction vs M/s. Indus Smelters Ltd. (Order dated 23.09.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 5934 of 2021), where after r
Delhi High Court M/S B S Enviro N Infracon Private Limited vs Vij Contracts Pvt. Ltd on 17 October, 2025 $~ * % Judgment reserved on: 09.10.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 17.10.2025 + RFA (COMM) 132/2024 M/S B S ENVIRO N INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Robin George, Mr. Yogesh Bhatt, Advs. versus VIJ CONTRACTS PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. L. K. Singh, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR JUDGMENT ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. 1. The issue that arises for consideration in the present Appeal is whether the learned Trial Court was right in concluding that the document dated 26.09.2019 (Ex. PW1/D2 /AnnexureA9) recorded a full and final settlement, in respect of the claims that had accrued up to that date, and whether, on the evidence on record, any interference with the findings of the Trial Court can be warranted. 2. The present Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as "CPC"] read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 assails the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2024 [hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Judgment"] passed by the Trial Court, whereby the suit Signature Not Verified RFA (COMM) 132/2024 Page 1 of 15 Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:17.10.2025 15:42:20 instituted by the Appellant for recovery of Rs.50,41,835/ (along with interest and costs) was dismissed. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The salient facts, as pleaded by the parties and recorded by the Trial Court, may be briefly stated. The Appellant is a company engaged in supply, installation, testing and commissioning of Sewage Treatment Plants [hereinafter referred to as "STP"], which had subcontracted certain works from the Respondent. The Respondent is the principal contractor awarded the work of supply, installation, testing and commissioning of an 800 KLD STP at Haryana Vishwakarma Skill University, Dudhola, Palwal by IRCON Infrastructure and Services Ltd. (IISL). The dispute arises from alleged nonpayment by the Respondent for materials supplied and services rendered by the Appellant under the subcontract agreement. 4. On 01.03.2019, the Respondent issued a Letter of Intent [hereinafter referred to as "LOI"] to the Appellant for the abovestated work for a contract value of Rs.1,15,00,000/ plus GST. The Bill of Quantity [hereinafter referred to as "BOQ"] annexed to the LOI provided for staged payments Rs.10,00,000/ (advance) as per BOQ, 85% on supply/delivery of material (within 10 days of receipt), 10% on installation and 5% on testing & commissioning. Clause 7 of the LOI provided for retention money (10% of running bills, subject to a maximum of 5% of contract value) refundable after the Defect Liability Period (36 months after completion). Payments were to be made on a backtoback basis, as IRCON was the principal releasing Signature Not Verified RFA (COMM) 132/2024 Page 2 of 15 Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:17.10.2025 15:42:20 funds to the Respondent for onward disbursement to the Appellant.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Bhup Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 8 November, 2021 1 . ON THE 8th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA Between: 1. BHUP RAM, S/O SH. PADAM SINGH, R/O VILLAGE KIARI, P.O. DARBHOG, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH 2. DHIAN SINGH, S/O SHRI DEVI SINGH, VILLAGE KAG­KUFTU, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH 3. MATHU RAM, S/O SHRI KANIYA RAM, VILLAGE KAG­KUFTU, P.O. DARBHOG, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH. ...PETITIONER ::: Downloaded on 31/01/2022 23:15:24 :::CIS 2 (BY MR. P.D. NANDA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH . THROUGH ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY (FORESTS), GOVT. OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA­ 171002 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, H.P. STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, SDA COMPLEX, VAN NIGAM BHAWAN, KASUMPTI, SHIMLA­171009 3. THE DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA­171001. 4. THE COMMANDANT, 1ST HPAP, BATTALION, JUNGA, DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH. 5. THE DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA­ 171004 6. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, SDA COMPLEX, KASUMPTI, SHIMLA­171009 RESPONDENTS (BY MR. RAJINDER DOGRA, SENIOR ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL ::: Downloaded on 31/01/2022 23:15:24 :::CIS 3 WITH MR. SHIV PAL MANHANS, MR. HEMANSHU MISHRA AND MR. VINOD THAKUR, ADDL. A.GS WITH MR. BHUPINDER THAKUR, DY.A.G.) . (MR. RAMAN SETHI, ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENT NO. 2) (MR. BALRAM SHARMA, ASGI, FOR RESPONDENT NO. 6.) This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan passed the following: ORDER The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following relief(s): "i) The respondent Corporation may kindly be directed to regularise the services of the petitioners from 1.4.1999, 1.4.2002 and 1.4.2003 against 20.8.2007, 20.8.2007 and 28.8.2007 respectively in term of judgments Annexure A­4 to Annexure P­10 and thereafter to fix their pay in the departments with consequential benefits. ii) The respondent Corporation may kindly be directed to pay due and permissible retirement benefits viz: gratuity, bonus for the service rendered by the petitioners in the Corporation with interest with further directions to supply details of amount due, paid if any and balance payable on this account. ::: Downloaded on 31/01/2022 23:15:24 :::CIS 4 iii) the respondent Corporation and the RPFC may kindly be directed to pay the EPF benefits particularly EPF pension to petitioner No. 3 (EPF Account No. HP/SML/1206) with interest with further directions to supply details0 of amount due, paid if any and balance in respect of each petitioners. . iv) The respondents No. 3 to 5 may kindly be directed to pay the benefits accruing to petitioners in term of NPS with further directions to supply details of amount due paid if any and balance on this account. v) The respondents State may please be directed to complete formalities of preparation of retirement papers of each illiterate and Class IV employees before the date of their retirement by fix
Madras High Court Torque Technics vs Owners And Parties Interested In Vessel on 2 May, 2025 C.S.(Comm Div).No. 125 of 2025 DATED: 02.05.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE N. MALA C.S.(COMM.DIV) No.125 of 2025 Torque Technics, No.37/20 3rd Lane North Beach Road, Chennai600 001 Rep. by its authorized representative K.Gurumurthi ...Applicant/Plaintiff Vs Owners and Parties interested in vessel SSL Sabarimalai having IMO No.9223899 Having Indian Flag, Now lying at within Indian Port's Foreshore limits DP World Container Terminal Chennai Port, Represented by its Master. .... Respondent/Defendant This plaint is filed under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 R/W Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 order IV Rule 1 and Rule 2 Order XLII, O.S. Rules 1956, praying for the following reliefs: A. That a Judgment and decree for a sum of Rs.8,02,666 (Rupees Eight Lakhs Two Thousand six hundred and sixtysix only) together with interest @ 20.25% calculated as per “section 15 & 16 of MSMED Act 2006” totaling to Rs.7,76,760/ (Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventysix thousand Seven Hundred and sixty only) totalling at Rs.15,79,426/ (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs SeventyNine 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm ) C.S.(Comm Div).No. 125 of 2025 Thousand Four Hundred and TwentySix only) along with the further interest till the date of realization. B. That the Defendant Vessel be detained/arrested/restrained from sailing away from the Port limits of DP World Container Terminal Chennai Port/Indian Territorial waters by an order of arrest/injunction, together with her hull, tackle engine, machinery, spares, gear, apparel, paraphernalia, furniture articles, things on board, etc., C. That the Defendant Vessel to be ordered and decreed to be sold through court and the amounts realized be directed to be paid to the plaintiff towards the suit claim made in prayer (a) above. D. Award Cost of the suit. E. Any other relief (s) may kindly be granted in favor of the Plaintiff under the facts and circumstances of the case as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. For Applicant/Plaintiff : M/s.Puhazh Gandhi For Respondent/Defendant : M/s.Deepika Murali ORDER The learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as defendant produced the settlement Agreement and Release entered into between them on 02.05.2025, whereunder, the suit claim of Rs.15,79,426/ (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Four Hundred and TwentySix only), claimed towards the repair of the vessel belonging to the defendant was amicably settled. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:00 pm ) C.S.(Comm Div).No. 125 of 2025 2. In view of the aforesaid settlement arrived at between the parties, the suit is dismissed as withdrawn. 3. As the suit is withdrawn as settled, the plaintiff shall be entitled to return of the Court fee as per Rules. 02.05.2025 (1/2) dsn Note: Issue order copy tod
Delhi High Court Bsf Commandant & Anr. vs Ms Applied Communication And Controls on 24 February, 2021 Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 DEL 309 % Judgment delivered on: 24.02.2021 + O.M.P. (COMM) 21/2021 and IA No. 870 & 872/2021 BSF COMMANDANT & ANR. ..... Petitioners versus M/S APPLIED COMMUNICATION AND CONTROLS ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners :Mr Gaurang Kanth, CGSC with Ms Biji Rajesh and Mr Shreesh Chadha, Advocates. For the Respondent :Mr Darpan Wadhwa, Senior Advocate with Mr Arnav Kumar, Mr Toyesh Tewari and Mr Rajat Mittal, Advocates. CORAM HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter the 'A&C Act') impugning an Arbitral Award dated 29.06.2020 (hereinafter the 'impugned award') passed by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of the learned Sole Arbitrator. 2. The impugned award has been rendered in the context of disputes that had arisen between the parties in relation to a Supply Order dated 31.12.2013 (hereafter the 'Supply Order'). Petitioner No. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed O.M.P (COMM) 21/2021 Page 1 of 23 By:DUSHYANT RAWAL 1 (hereafter 'BSF') had placed the Supply Order of eight hundred and fiftyfive pieces of fogging machines on the respondent, a sole proprietorship concern of Shiv Kumar Sharma (hereafter 'ACC'). The said Supply Order was initially suspended and thereafter, terminated. In the meanwhile, ACC had manufactured and offered two hundred and fortyfive machines for inspection. 3. By the impugned award, the Arbitral Tribunal has partly accepted the claims preferred by ACC. The Arbitral Tribunal accepted that the termination of the Supply Order was illegal and entered an award for a sum of ₹80,85,000 in his favour being the value of two hundred and fortyfive pieces of fogging machines less their salvage value. In addition, the Arbitral Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹25,65,050 as loss of profit on the balance machines. Thus, awarding an aggregate amount of ₹1,06,50,050 in favour of ACC. The Arbitral Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the awarded claims from the date of termination of the Supply Order (that is, 23.07.2014) till the date of the award (amounting to ₹1,13,65,499.94). And, future interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the awarded amount of ₹2,20,15,550 (₹1,06,50,050 plus ₹1,13,65,499.94.), if the awarded amount was not paid within a period of thirty days. In addition, the Arbitral Tribunal also awarded a sum of ₹5,00,000/ as costs but clarified that future interest would not be payable on this amount, but would only run on the awarded amount of ₹2,20,15,550. 4. The petitioners have assailed the impugned award as being patently illegal and contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian Law. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed O.M.P (COMM) 21/2021 Page 2 of 23 By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Factual Context 5. Petitioner no. 2, Directorate General of Supplies & Disposals (hereinafter 'DGS&D'), functions under the Ministry
C.C.E. & S.T., LTU, Bangalore Respondent Appearance: Mr. S. Ananthan, C.A. For the Appellant Mr. S. Teli, Dy. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent HON'BLE SHRI M.V.RAVINDRAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 03/09/2013 Date of Decision: 03/09/2013 Final Order 26508 / 2013 This stay petition is filed for waiver of predeposit of penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 for nonpayment/short payment of service tax made for the month of September 2009. 2. Learned C.A. submits that the appellant has already discharged service tax liability in excess in December 2009 which has been adjusted towards the short payment. It is also submitted that the appellant has paid interest for the delayed payment and the appellant is registered with LTU. 3. Heard learned Authorised Representative. 4. On perusal of the records, I find that there is no dispute that the appellant had short paid service tax in September 2009 but paid the same in December 2009 and the same has already been adjusted. Interest has also been paid by the appellant. As the service tax liability and interest stand deposited, I find that issue of imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act on the appellant is only contested. 5. As the issue is in a short compass, the appeal itself is taken up for the disposal after dispensing with the requirement of predeposit of the amount involved. 6. On perusal of the records, I find that there is no dispute that the appellant has been regularly paying the service tax liability. The appellant is registered with LTU and is a PSU. As seen from the records, short payment of service tax for the month of September 2009, was in my opinion due to bonafide calculation error for which there is no necessity to visit appellant with penalty. I find that this is a fit case to invoke provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, and set aside the penalty. In view of foregoing, I find that there is a reasonable cause shown by the appellant; accepting the same, by invoking provisions of Section 80 of the finance Act, 1994; I set aside the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority and allow the appeal. Appeal is allowed to the extent it challenges the impugned order before Tribunal. (Order dictated and pronounced in open court) (M.V. RAVINDRAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER /vc/
Madras High Court Anand Viswanathan vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd on 26 February, 2019 1 Dated : 26.02.2019 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR O.P.No.726 of 2011 1.Anand Viswanathan 2.TRM Image Equity Pvt. Ltd No.3/1, Veena Apartments No.27/13, 2nd Main Road R.A.Puram, Chennai 600 028. .. Petitioners vs. 1.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 4th Floor, Ceebros Centre Montieth Road, Egmore Chennai – 600 008. 2.N.C.Vijairagavan Golden Demure AHBlock Door No.87, Fifth Street Anna Nagar, Chennai 40. ... Respondents Original Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the award dated 24.08.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent in Arbitration Case No.449 of 2008. For Petitioners : Mr.D.Vivekanandan For respondents : Mr.V.Balasubramani for R1 R2 Arbitrator http://www.judis.nic.in 2 ORDER There are two petitioners and two respondents in the instant 'Original Petition' (hereinafter 'OP' for brevity). 2. Instant OP has been filed under Section 34 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996' (hereinafter 'A & C Act' for brevity). 3. A perusal of Section 34 of A & C Act reveals that grounds for setting aside Arbitral awards have been adumbrated therein and the term used in Section 34 is 'application'. However, as this Registry is assigning the nomenclature 'OP' to such proceedings seeking to set aside Arbitral awards and therefore, the instant proceedings is being referred to as 'OP' for the sake of convenience and clarity. 4. Second respondent before me constituted the Arbitral Tribunal as sole arbitrator and passed an Arbitral award dated 24.08.2009, which is being sought to be set aside in the instant OP. This Arbitral award dated 24.08.2009 made by the second respondent constituting the Arbitral Tribunal as a sole arbitrator shall hereinafter be referred to as 'impugned Arbitral award' for the sake of convenience and clarity. http://www.judis.nic.in 3 5. Mr.D.Vivekanandan, learned counsel on record for two petitioners and Mr.V.Balasubramani, learned counsel on record for the contesting first respondent are before me. 6. Instant OP is listed under the caption 'FOR FINAL DISPOSAL/ARGUMENTS' today. 7. As would be evident from the narrative thus far, impugned Arbitral award is nearly a decade old (it is dated 24.08.2009) and the instant OP though is of the year 2011, it comes to light from the case file placed before me that instant OP was also filed/presented in this Court more than a decade ago. To be precise, it was presented on 09.10.2009. 8. Be that as it may, from the submissions made before me today, it comes to light and emerges clearly that the entire matter turns on a very narrow compass. 9. Learned counsel for two petitioners submits that the pivotal and primordial ground of attack is under sub clause (iii) of Clause (a) of sub Section 2 of Section 34 of A & C Act. In other words, it is