abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
2 PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The ld.CIT(A) has decided appeals of the assessee for the Asstt.Year 200910 and 201011 vide separate orders dated 28.1.2013. The assessee and Revenue both are in crossappeals for the Asstt.Year 201011, whereas in the appeal of the Revenue for the Asstt.Year 200910, the assessee has filed CO bearing No.148/Ahd/2013. Since common issues are involved, therefore, we heard all the appeals and CO together and deem it appropriate to dispose of them by this common order. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue read as under: IT(SS)A.No.140/Ahd/2013: 1. The ld.CIT(A)has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.8,10,850/ made on account of disallowance of cash payment to contractors. 2. The ld.CIT(A)has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,38,03,648/ made on account of unaccounted sales merchandisers. 3. The ld.CIT(A)has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.48,812/ made on account of disallowance of foreign travel expenses. IT(SS)A.No.141/Ahd/2013: 1. The ld.CIT(A)has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.8,95,670/ made on account of disallowance of cash payment to contractors. 2. The ld.CIT(A)has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.67,08,014/ made on account of shortage of stock of yarn. 3. A perusal of the above quantum which have been deleted by the ld.CIT(A) in both the years would reveal that tax effect by virtue of order of the ld.CIT(A) in these appeal is less than Rs.50 lakhs in each year. Though, these appeals were heard on 30.7.2019, but before the pronouncement of the order, the CBDT has issued instruction bearing IT(SS)A No.572/Ahd/2013 and 3 Others Komal Texfab P.Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ahmedabad 3 no.17 of 2019 dated 8.8.2019,vide which it has prohibited subordinate authorities from challenging order of the CIT(A) where tax effect by virtue of relief given by the CIT(A) is less than Rs.50 lakhs. 4. After perusal of the above CBDT Instruction, we are of the view that the present appeal of the Revenue falls within the purview of the CBDT Instruction cited (supra). It is not in dispute that tax effect on the disputed addition is not more than Rs.50 lakhs, and therefore, keeping in view the above CBDT circular and provisions of section 268A of the Income Tax Act, we are of the view that the present appeals of the Revenue deserve to be dismissed. They are dismissed. However, it is observed that in case on reverification at the end of the AO it can be demonstrated that the tax effect is more, or Revenue's case falls within the ambit of exceptions provided in the Circular, then the Department will be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall of this order. Such application should be filed within the time period prescribed in the Act. In view of the above, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed due to low tax effect. 5. Now we take the appeal
Madras High Court In Both Wps vs The Principal Commissioner Of Customs on 6 November, 2024 2024:MHC:3774 1 Order reserved on 01.08.2024 Order pronounced on 06.11.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P.Nos. 768 & 769 of 2018 & WMP Nos. 933 & 934 of 2018 In both WPs M/s. Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Pvt. Ltd, Plot No. K24, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Chennai602 105 .....Petitioner vs 1. The Principal Commissioner of Customs Chennai VII, Commissionerate (Air Cargo) New Customs House, Meenambakkam Chennai 600 027 2. The Development Commissioner Office of the Development Commissioner MEPZ Special Economic Zone NH45, Administrative Office Building Tambaram, Chennai600 045, India .....Respondents 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 Prayer in W.P. No. 768 of 2024: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, calling for the records of the Order bearing orderin original no. 689/2017AIR, and, dated 30.12.2017 issued by the Respondent no. 1 and quash the same. Prayer in W.P. No. 769 of 2024: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, calling for the records of the Order bearing orderin original no. 688/2017AIR, and, dated 30.12.2017 issued by the Respondent no. 1 and quash the same. In both WPs For Petitioner: Mr. Satish Parasaran, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Karthik Sundaram For Respondents: ARL. Sundaresan, ASG assisted by Mr.A.P. Srinivas for R1, and Mr. B. Rabu Manohar for R2. 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 COMMON ORDER Factual Background: By these writ petitions, the petitioner assails the Ordersin Original (OIOs), both dated 30.12.2024 and issued by the first respondent, demanding AntiDumping Duty (ADD) of Rs. 146,72,95,243/ and Rs. 189,76,79,197/, respectively, along with interest and penalty applicable thereto. 2. The petitionercompany, Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Pvt. Ltd. (‘petitioner’), is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of telecom related equipment in India. The Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit of Flextronics Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. ('Flextronics SEZ unit’) imported the goods, described by the petitioner as standalone parts/components, into India from Huawei, China. After the PCBAs were populated using Surface 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 Mounting Technology (STM) at the abovementioned SEZ unit, the
Delhi High Court Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited ... vs Canva Pty Ltd & Ors. on 18 July, 2023 $~ * Reserved on: 18th March, 2023 Date of decision: 18th July, 2023 + CS(COMM) 573/2021 and I.A. 14842/2021 RXPRISM HEALTH SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, Ms. Prakriti Anand and Mr. Karan Vijayan (M:9873674225). versus CANVA PTY LTD & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Ms. Sneha Jain, Ms. Garima Sahney, Dr. Victor Vaibhav Tandon, Ms. Priyam Lizmary Cherian, Mr. Saif Rahman Ansari and Ms. Shruti Jain, Advocates. (M:9582085884). JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J. I.A. 14842/2021 (O. XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 and Section 151 of CPC, 1908) The present judgment consists of the following sections: S. Contents Page No no. 1 Introduction 2 2 Background to the present suit 3 3 Submissions of the parties 5 4 Plaintiff's invention and the problem it solves 26 5 Analysis and findings 27 6 Plaintiff's case for relief 32 7 Preliminary Steps 34 8 Report filed by the Defendant's Expert 39 9 Report filed by Plaintiff's Expert 41 10 Supplementary report of Defendant's Expert dated 26th July, 2022 42 11 Analysis 42 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 573/2021 Page 1 of 71 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:18.07.2023 22:05 12 Test of infringement 44 13 Invalidity 60 14 Autoauditorium (D5) 60 15 Loom System (D4) 60 16 Microsoft PowerPoint ('PPT') 2016 version 61 17 Defendant's pleading and written statement 62 18 Conclusion 66 Introduction: 1. The evolution of business and commerce has undergone tremendous transformation with the advent of the internet and online communication platforms. In traditional business and commerce, the tools requ
MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION Appearance: MR. P.R.NANAVATI, ADVOCATE WITH HARSH V GAJJAR(7828) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR. SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. BHADRISH S RAJU(6676) WITH MR. DHANESH R PATEL, ADVOCATE for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2 & 3 NOTICE NOT RECD BACK(3) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2,3 SERVED BY RPAD (N)(6) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 UNSERVED WANT OF TIM(31) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Date : 12/03/2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.0. As common question of law and facts arise in both Page 1 of 51 C/SCA/1094/2018 JUDGMENT these petition, they are heard, decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order. 2.0. By way of Special Civil Application No. 1094 of 2018­ Samvit Buildcare Private Limited has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the the impugned E­ Tender No.2017_AAI_5610 issued by the Airport Authority of India for the work of "Mechanised Environmental Support Services (MESS) UP Keeping of Terminal ­1 and Inter Terminal Link" at SVPI Airport, Ahmedabad. 2.1. By way of Special Civil Application No.1262 of 2018 the very petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the the impugned E­ Tender No.2017_AAI_5175 issued by the Airport Authority of India for the work of "Mechanised Environmental Support Services (MESS) UP Keeping of Terminal ­2 and Inter Terminal Link" at SVPI Airport, Ahmedabad. The petitioner has also prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order directing the respondent to accept and consider the bid submitted by the petitioner in hardcopy format and process the same in accordance with law. 3.0. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Special Civil Application No.1094 of 2018 have been narrated and considered. 3.1. That the respondent no.2 herein Airport Authority of India invited the Rate E­ Tender for work of "Mechanised Environmental Support Services (MESS) UP Keeping of Terminal ­1 and Inter Terminal Link" at SVPI Airport, Ahmedabad at an estimated cost of Page 2 of 51 C/SCA/1094/2018 JUDGMENT Rs.12,03,92,407/­ (including GST excluding PF, ESI and Bonus) with completion period of three years. That the tender fee was to be paid upto 17:00 hrs on 19.01.2018. The last date of submission of e­bid through portal was upto 17:00 hrs on 19.01.2018. That along with the tender, bidder was required to deposit EMD of the value Rs.8,02,616/­. That Tender was required to be submitted in three envelops (Envelop I, II and III). Envelope I was containing qualifying requirements of Contractor / Firm. Envelope II was Technical Bid containing scanned copy of the Unconditional Acceptance of AAI's Tender Condition and EMD, Affidavit for Not Blacklisting and integrity pact. Envelope III was the Financial e­Bid shall be submitted in "Items" Section of e­tendering portal. That as per the tender document, the qualifying requirements of contractor / firms were as un
period of 180 days prescribed in Section 8 of the Act of 2006 cannot be held to be mandatory. He relies upon (2017) Volume 3 Calcutta Law Journal 253 (National Projects Construction Corporation Limited & Anr. Versus West Bengal State Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council & Ors.) and submits that, notwithstanding the existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties a reference under the Act of 2006 is maintainable. In support of the same contention he relies upon (2014) Volume 4 Allahabad Law Journal 52 (M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others) and (2013) Volume 1 ILR Punjab & Haryana 709 (Welspun Corporation Limited Versus Micro and Small, Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, Punjab & Others). Learned advocate appearing for th
Accused : S.M.Kausar, No.47, III Floor, Shiva Mansion, St.Michael Church Road, Shanthinagar, Bengaluru 560 027. { By Sri.C.R.Abdul Rasheed Advocate } Offence complained : U/S. 138 of N.I. Act., Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty Final Order : Accused is Convicted Date of Order : 02122022 3 C.C.17009/2018 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 sum and substance of the complaint are as under; It is averred in the complaint that, the complainant is the manufacturer and dealer in Kanchipuram, Dharmavaram and pure Fancy Mysore Silk Crepe Sarees and also the whole sale dealer of the same. The accused is one of the customer of the complainant for more than 5 years and the accused used to purchase sarees from the complainant on whole sale basis thereby supplies to other retail shops and make huge profits. Further, the accused is also the supplier of Readymade Garments and from the past 4 C.C.17009/2018 several years, he has good and cordial relationship with the complainant. It is further contended that, the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.2,60,000/ from the complainant and promised to repay the same within short time and had issued a cheque bearing No.530206 dated 25.03.2018 for a sum of Rs.2,60,000/ drawn on Vijaya Bank, Bengaluru. It is stated that, the accused had also purchased silk sarees for the worth of Rs.1,50,000/ and has issued a cheque bearing No.669019 dated 25.04.2018 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ drawn on SBI, Wilson Garden Branch, Bengaluru. As per the instructions of the accused, the complainant had presented the aforesaid cheques for encashment through his banker i.e., Punjab National Bank Branch, Bengaluru dated 08.05.2018, but both the cheques were returned unpaid and dishonored due to "Funds Insufficient" in the account of the drawer of both the cheques as per the bank endorsement dated 10.05.2018. 5 C.C.17009/2018 Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused through his counsel on 11.05.2018 by RPAD and the same was duly served upon the accused on 14.05.2018. As per the postal acknowledgement dated 17.05.2018, the accused also sent reply notice dated 27.05.2018 denying the contents of legal notice. On these assertions, it is sought to convict the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act and grant compensation as per section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 03. On presentation of complaint, this court has verified the averments of complaint along with records and thereby had taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act. Thereby, as per the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex court reporte
Manik Sethi Respondent JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1 Leave granted. 2 This appeal arises from a judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in RFA No 5 of 2019. The trial Court dismissed the suit instituted by the appellant on the ground of limitation, by a judgment dated 16 August 2018. The High Court upheld the dismissal of the suit on that ground. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Chetan Kumar Date: 2022.02.08 15:02:14 IST Reason: CA 814/2022 2 3 The appellant instituted a suit against the respondent on 31 March 2017 (Civil Suit No 76 of 2017 (new number 355 of 2017)) under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure 19081 for the recovery of an amount of Rs 1,11,63,633 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till the realization of the full amount. The respondent filed a written statement on 24 May 2017. An application was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for the rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. On 4 January 2018, the trial Court framed a preliminary issue on whether the suit was barred by limitation. On 15 March 2018, the appellant was granted an opportunity to file its replication and the suit was adjourned to 26 April 2018 for addressing arguments on the preliminary issue. The appellant filed its replication on 20 April 2018. On 26 April 2018 and 23 May 2018, an adjournment was granted by the trial Court. On 26 July 2018, the trial Court rejected a plea for an adjournment made by the appellant. Oral arguments were heard on behalf of the respondent and the appellant was granted fifteen days’ time to file written arguments. The appellant failed to file the written arguments before 10 August 2018. On 16 August 2018, the trial Court declined to grant any further time and by its judgment decided the issue of limitation against the appellant. The appellant carried the matter in appeal in RFA No 5 of 2019. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment dated 4 1 “CPC” CA 814/2022 3 September 2019. 4 The case of the appellant is that the respondent had requested the appellant to grant a business loan from time to time, and the request was acceded to by the appellant. The loans were stated to be repayable with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The appellant claims to have advanced an amount of Rs 10 lakhs on 13 June 2012, 18 lakhs on 11 July 2012 and Rs 15 lakhs on 21 December 2012 by cheques drawn on Axis Bank, and a further amount of Rs 39 lakhs. The case of the appellant is that the respondent partly discharged his liability and that he is entitled to a decree for the balance in the amount of Rs. 1,11,63,633 along with an interest at 18% per annum. Paragraph 5 of the plaint contains the following averments: “The aforesaid loans have been given by the plaintiff to the defendant always with an understanding that aforesaid loans shall be returned along with interest @ 18% p.a. That the aforesaid loans were repayable within one year from the date of payment of the last
MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION (MSEF) COUNCIL DISTRICT (SOUTH) AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Arushi Gupta on behalf of Mr. Jawahar Raja, ASC, GNCTD for R1. (M: 9811462308) Dr Amit George & Mr Sahil Garg, Advocate for R2. (M: 9560690036) JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J. 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. This petition raises important issues arising out of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter 'MSMED Act, 2006') and has been from heard time to time by this Court. 3. The question raised in the present petition is Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 11233/2021 Page 1 of 29 Signing Date:05.07.2023 18:21:11 Under the MSMED Act, 2006 whether an independent claim can be entertained by the MSEFC at the instance of the BUYER? 4. The issue is to be adjudicated in the background facts wherein, the Respondent no.2 who is the buyer sought a reference under Section 18 of the MSMED Act of its claims against the Supplier, as an independent claim. No claim was filed by the Supplier against the Buyer and thus the Buyer's claim was not filed as a counterclaim. Brief Facts 5. The Petitioner Uniseven Engineering and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. seeks quashing/ setting aside of the impugned order dated 14th September, 2021 passed by Respondent No.1 Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council District (South), GNCTD (hereinafter, 'MSEFC') under the MSMED Act, 2006 advising the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 9,59,66,352/ to Respondent No. 2 Harji Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. as per the agreement dated 17th October, 2019. 6. The said agreement dated 17th October, 2019 was issued to the Petitioner by Respondent No. 2 for providing Combined Station Works (CSW) including Civil, Mechanical, Electrical and Instrumentation works at Paradip and Balasore Stations in Odisha. A second agreement dated 18th October, 2019 was also placed. As per the said agreement, the Petitioner was to supply goods and services including labor, material tools etc., as also engineers and supervisors for monitoring services. Thus, the Petitioner was the 'Supplier' and Respondent No.2 was the 'Buyer'. 7. Certain disputes arose between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 regarding the payments under the agreements. On 10th July, 2021 a legal notice Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 11233/2021
1. The Union of India, Through Ministry of Small Scale Industries, Nirman Bhavan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi. 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Department of Industry, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 3. The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 4. Bajaj Auto Limited, Through its Chairman Head Office at Akurdi, Pune. 5. Managing Director, Bajaj Auto Limited, Akurdi, Pune. 6. VicePresident (Materials) Bajaj Auto Limited, Akurdi, Pune. ::: Uploaded on 08/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on 23/04/2020 04:35:06 ::: WP35082013+ 2 7. Sukarta Parishad, Through its Chairman, Divisional Commissioner Office, Delhi Gate, Aurangabad. ... Respondents ..... Mr. R. V. Sangle, Advocate i/by Mr. S. V. Dixit and Mr. Hitesh Sangle, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. S. B. Deshpande, ASG for Respondent No.1, Union Of India. Mr. R. V. Dasalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. S. P. Shah, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Mr. P. M. Shah, Senior Counsel i/by Mr. L. D. Vakil, Advocate for Respondent No.6. ..... WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6928 OF 2016 Bajaj Auto Limited, A company registered under The companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at Akrudi, Pune. Through its Authorised Officer Mr. M. M. Mundada Age : 57 years, Occu : Service, R/o. Waluj, Aurangabad. ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Directorate of Industries, Second Floor, New Administrative Bldg., Madam Cama Road, Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Joint Director of Industries for Development Commissioner (Industries) Second Floor, New Administrative Bldg., Madam Cama Road, Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai. ::: Uploaded on 08/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on 23/04/2020 04:35:06 ::: WP35082013+ 3 3. Ajanta Press Mechanical Works, Through its proprietor Shri P. V. Mankar, Plot No. B45, Waluj, Aurangabad. 4. The Chairman, Micro Small Enterprises Felicitation Council (Sukarta Parishad), Divisional Commissioner Office, Delhi Gate, Aurangabad. ... Respondents ..... Mr. P. M. Shah, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. L. D. Vakil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R. V. Dasalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Ranjeet Sangle, Advocate h/f Mr. S. V. Dixit, Advocate for Respondent No.3. ..... CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J. RESERVED ON : 20/08/2019 PRONOUNCED ON : 05/11/2019 JUDGMENT : 1. By filing Writ Petition No. 3508 of 2013, the petitioner, a small scale industry name and styled as "Ajanta Press and Mechanical Works" at Waluj MIDC Area, seeks quashing and setting aside the order dated 17.02.2019 passed by the Sukarta Parishad and also seeks direction against respondent nos. 4 to 6 to ::: Uploaded on 08/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on 23/04/2020 04:35:06 ::: WP35082013+ 4 pay compensation in terms and conditions of the purchase orders, particularly, 45 days money rotation