abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Andhra Pradesh High Court Amravati Jana Sreenivasulu, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 24 January, 2025 1 *HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI +WRIT PETITION NO: 9996, 11089 & 11476/2021 and 29140/2023 +WP No.9996/2021 Between: #G. Kiranmai and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND $The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 24.01.2025 THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes 3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes ___________________________________ DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO 2 * THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9996, 11089 & 11476/2021 and 29140/2023 % 24.01.2025 +WP No.9996/2021 # Between: #G. Kiranmai and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND $The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ghanta Rama Rao Sri Ghanta Sridhar Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy Sri K. Raghuveer ! Counsel for Respondents: Advocate General Sri M. Vijay Kumar Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy Sri Venkata Rao Ms. Jyothirathna Anumolu Sri Surendra Rao Sri Srnivasa Rao Madiraju Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri Sri C. Srinivasa Baba 3 <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. MANU/SC/0776/1999 2. MANU/SC/0644/1987 3. MANU/SC/8149/2006 4. AIR 1968 SC 850 5. (1998) 2 SCC 523 6. (1982) 2 SSC 116 7. (2022)1 SCC 352 8. 1985 (Supp) SCC 218 9. 1975 (2) SCC 553 10. 1981 4 SCC 130 11. 1982 (2) SCC 116 12. 1985 (Supp) SCC 218 13. 1987 (4) SCC 566 14. 1998 (2) SCC 523 15. 2000(1) SCC 644 16 2006 (8) SCC 129 17 (1991) 2 SCC 295 18 (1967) SLR 753 19 AIR 1962 SC 1044 20 (2022) 1 SCC 352 4 APHC010181552021 AT AMARAVATI [3310] ((Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9996 9996, 11089 & 11476/2021 and 29140/2023 WP No.996 of 2021 Between: G. Kiranmai and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 5 1. GHANTA SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Y.NAGI REDDY (APSPDCL) 2. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL 3. GP FOR ENERGY (AP) 4. V R REDDY KOVVURI 5. V V SATISH The Court made the following: COMMONORDER : As the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same, and therefore, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order. 2. The WP Nos.9996, 11089 of 2021 are filed challenging the Memo of the 2nd respondent in Memo No. APCPDCL/CMD/DIR(TECH)/ GM(HR)/DGM/ PO(Adm)/ Asst./D.No.992/21, dated 17.03.2021 unsettling petitioners' settled seniority basing upon the seniority in the Cadre of Assistant Engineer instead of taking into consideration of the Seniority in the cadre of the Deputy Executive Engineer as the same is arbitrary and illegal.
Madras High Court Malaviya National Institute Of ... vs Micro And Small Enterprises & ... on 29 January, 2024 W.P. No. 1236 of 2020 DATED : 29.01.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU W.P. No. 1236 of 2020 and W.M.P. No. 1497 of 2020 Malaviya National Institute of Technology (MNIT), Represented by its Registrar, Mr. Jai Narain, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur – 302 017, Rajasthan. … Petitioner vs 1. Micro and Small Enterprises & Facilitation Council, Represented by its Regional Officer/General Manager, District Industries Centre, No. 2, Raja Street, Town Hall, Coimbatore – 641 001. 2. M/s. Mukesh & Associates, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Having registered office at Division – 2, 2/6, Ranganathar Avenue, Perumal Malai Main Road, Narasothipatty, Salem – 636 004. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the First Respondent from continuing the proceeding bearing No. MSEFC/CBER/16/2019 on the file of the First Respondent as without jurisdiction. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/24 W.P. No. 1236 of 2020 For Petitioner : Mr. R.Bharath Kumar For Respondents : Mr. S.J.Mohamed Sathik, Government Advocate (for R1) Mr. Vishnu Mohan (for R2) ORDER Heard Mr. R.Bharath Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.J.Mohamed Sathik, Learned Government Advocate appearing for the First Respondent and Mr. Vishnu Mohan, Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2. The Petitioner had availed the services of the Second Respondent for providing comprehensive architectural and engineering consultancy for hostels, studio apartments and allied facilities for its institution. The Second Respondent raised a demand by Invoice No. M&A/1692/1516/004 dated 09.04.2015 claiming Rs. 35,75,918/ for approval of Stage1 Component Services along with interest at the rate of 12.36% for the same, followed by reminder in email dated 06.02.2017 informing that if the payment was not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/24 W.P. No. 1236 of 2020 made, it was intended to invoke the arbitration clause in terms of Clause 5.6.5 of the agreement between the parties, which reads as follows: “5.6.5. Arbitration During the period of the project, MNIT JAIPUR will endeavor to provide Mukesh & Associates any assistance as required, which will not involve any financial implications. In the unfortunate situation of any and all disputes, disagreement and controversies arising in any manner, which cannot be settled by mutual agreement between MNIT JAIPUR and Mukesh & Associates, the matter shall be submitted to arbitration. For, this MNIT JAIPUR and Mukesh & Associates shall nominate (in writing) one Arbitrator each. In turn, these two Arbitrator shall nominate an umpire. In case these two Arbitrators do not
Amrapali Fincap Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellants : Mr. Krishnendu Datta and Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Prachi Johri, Ms. Kamal Naini Sharma and Ms. Mrigangi Parul, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Kunal Godhwani and Ms. Kinjal Chadha, Advocates for R3. Mr. Sumant Batra, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Mr. Malak Bhatt, Mr. Ajatshatru Singh Rawat, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari and Ms. Riya Kaur Arora, Advocates. Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Mr. Nikhil Kumar Jha and Mr. Gautam Goel, Advocates for R1/RP. With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1172 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Amrapali Fincap Ltd. ...Appellant(s) Versus Krit Narayan Mishra, RP, ...Respondent(s) JC World Hospitality (P) Ltd. & Ors Present: For Appellant : Mr. Sumant Batra, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Mr. Malak Bhatt, Mr. Ajatshatru Singh Rawat, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari and Ms. Riya Kaur Arora, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Krishnendu Datta and Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Prachi Johri, Ms. Kamal Naini Sharma, Ms. Kamal Naini Sharma and Ms. Mrigangi Parul, Advocates for R2 and R3. Mr. Kunal Godhwani and Ms. Kinjal Chadha, Advocates for R2. Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Mr. Nikhil Kumar Jha, Advocates for R1/RP. With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1200 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Krit Narayan Mishra, RP, ...Appellant(s) JC World Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Versus Amrapali Fincap Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Mr. Nikhil Kumar Jha and Mr. Gautam Goel, Advocates. Mr. Krishnendu Datta and Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Prachi Johri, Ms. Kamal Naini Sharma, Ms. Kamal Naini Sharma and Ms. Mrigangi Parul, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Kunal Godhwani, Mr. Gautam Goel and Ms. Kinjal Chadha, Advocates for R2. Mr. Sumant Batra, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Mr. Malak Bhatt, Mr. Ajatshatru Singh Rawat, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari and Ms. Riya Kaur Arora, Advocates for R1. With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1552 of 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Abishek Nath Sarvaria ...Appellant(s) Versus JC World Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta and Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Prachi Johri, Ms. Kamal Naini Sharma, Ms. Kamal Naini Sharma and Ms. Mrigangi Parul, Advocates. 2 of 74 For Respondents : Mr. Sumant Batra, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Mr. Malak Bhatt, Mr. Ajatshatru Singh Rawat, Mr. Sarthak Bhandari, Ms. Riya Kaur Arora, Advocates for R2. Mr. Milan Singh Negi, Mr. Gautam Goel and Mr. Nikhil Kumar Jha, Advocates for R1. JUDGMENT ( 7th November, 2025 ) Ashok Bhushan, J. All these Appeals arises out of order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) New Delhi, Court IV in IA No.6035 of 2024, IA No.1301 of 2025, IA No.850 of 2022 in CP (IB) No.256/ND/2019. 2. Brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding these Appeals are: 2.1. The Corporate Debtor M/s. J.C. World Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. is an MSME engaged in developing Real Estate. By order dated 13.12.2019, the Corporate Debtor has been admitted to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on application filed by the Financial Creditors in Class under Section 7. Resolution Profe
Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s) WITH Anupam Raghav & Anr. Applicant(s) Versus U. O. I. & Ors. Respondent(s) WITH Sandplast (India) Ltd. & Ors. Applicant(s) Versus MoEF & Ors. Respondent(s) Date of hearing: 27.01.2020 Date of uploading on the website: 12.02.2020 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P WANGDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER ORDER 1. This order may be read in continuation of order dated 20.11.2018 on the subject of management of fly ash generated by the Thermal Power 1 Plants (TPPs). This Tribunal considered impact of nonutilization and proper disposal of fly ash by the TPPs on air quality, surface water, ground water, health and environment. After considering the notifications issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) requiring 100% utilization of fly ash by 31.12.2017 and applicable norms for utilization of fly ash, this Tribunal directed preparation of action plans to achieve 100% utilization of fly ash and for its scientific disposal. The Committee comprising MoEF&CC, CPCB and IIT Roorkee was to determine the liability of the TPPs for damages on 'Polluter Pays' principle. 2. We may note only the case set out by the applicant in O.A. No. 117/2014 as the grievance in other connected matters is identical. It is submitted that nonutilization and improper disposal of fly ash leads to increase in air pollution and causes severe health problems. It also affects horticulture and agricultural crops. As at present, there is an increase in ash pond areas and increased height of ash dykes. Apart from air pollution, there is pollution of surface water and ground water. Major pollutants in fly ash are Arsenic and Mercury. Both the said pollutants are injurious for the land and the water bodies. Thus, there is need for 100% utilization of fly ash by all possible means such as conversion to ash based products, preventing its washing away or flying in the air. 3. In substance, case of the applicant is that air pollution and water pollution is continuing against mandate of law for which no remedial action was being taken. MoEF&CC has failed to ensure proper monitoring and compliance mechanism inspite of issuing notification 2 on the subject. This is also resulting in failure to enforce the mandate of law under Air Act, 1981; Water Act, 1974 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EP Act), apart from damage caused to the environment and public health. This is also infringement of 'Sustainable Development' and 'Precautionary' principles. As a consequence of continuing air and water pollution, 'Polluter Pays' principle also needs to be invoked. 4. Notification dated 14.09.1999 was issued by the MoEF&CC which required use of atleast 25% of the ash for clay bricks or tiles or blocks for use in construction activities. The Delhi High Court vide judgment dated 05.08.2004 in Writ Petition (C) No. 2145/1999 directed the Government to make use of fly ash mandatory in roads apart from using it in bricks for construction. Land, electricity and water is required to be made available for promoting ash based production units. Vide amendment dated 03.11.2009, provision was made for its use in manufactur
Madras High Court Software Technology Parks Of India vs Consolidated Construction Consortium ... on 8 August, 2019 Judgment in OSA No.157 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 Software Technology Parks of India vs Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited, DATED : 08.08.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN O.S.A. No.157 of 2019 and CMP No.14364 of 2019 Software Technology Parks of India, No.5, 3rd Floor, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Taramani, Chennai 600 113. ..Appellant Vs 1.Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited, No.5, 2nd Link Street, CIT Colony, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. 2.K.Srinivasan, Sole Arbitrator, Block No.1, Flat No.C2, Mayfair Apartments, No.2A, LIC Colony Main Road, Velacherry, Chennai 600 042. ..Respondents PRAYER: Appeal filed Under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the decree and order dated 02.01.2019 made in O.P.No.433 of 2010 on the file of this Court For Appellant : Mr.Puhazh Gandhi.P For Respondents : Mr.S.S.Rajesh for R1 R2Arbitrator 1/23 http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment in OSA No.157 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 Software Technology Parks of India vs Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited, JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J.] This Appeal has been filed by Software Technology Parks of India under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, aggrieved by the order dated 02.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in O.P.No.433 of 2010, which was filed under section 34 of the Act by the Respondent/ Contractor, Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited, Chennai vs. Software Technology Parks of India and the learned Single Judge by the order impugned before us, was pleased to set aside the Arbitral Award dated 10.05.2010 passed by the learned Arbitrator, Mr.K.Srinivasan, the sole Arbitrator. 2. The dispute between the parties, in brief is as follows: The Software Technology Parks of India, awarded a contract of construction of office building to the Respondent contractor M/s.Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited and the scheduled date for completion of the said construction was 31.01.2007. Since the Contractor did not complete the construction within the time 30.01.2007 but it was completed only by 30.11.2007 after about ten months, the Respondent Software Technology Parks of India deducted/ 2/23 http://www.judis.nic.in Judgment in OSA No.157 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 Software Technology Parks of India vs Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited, recovered 'Liquidated Damages' in terms of clause 26 of the Agreement between the parties from the outstanding dues of the
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED Appearance: BANSI M KARIA(9320) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 RAJVI N PATEL(9620) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR AJAY R MEHTA(453) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 Date : 27/02/2020 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The word 'domicile' is "to identify the personal law by which an individual is governed in respect of various matters such as the essential validity of a marriage, the effect of marriage on the proprietary rights of husband and wife, jurisdiction in divorce and nullity of marriage, illegitimacy, legitimation and adoption and testamentary and intestate succession to moveables. "Domicile" as pointed Page 2 of 65 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 17:08:16 IST 2020 C/SCA/2053/2020 JUDGMENT out in Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition) vol. 8, paragraph 421 is the legal relationship between an individual and a territory with a distinct legal system, which invokes that system as his personal law.It is well settled that the domicile of a person in that country in which he either has or is deemed by law to have his permanent home. "By domicile" said Lord Cranworth in Wicker v. Humes, [1858] 7 HL Cases 124, "We mean home, the permanent home". 2. "Domicile" is basically a legal concept for the purpose of determining what is the personal law applicable to an individual and even
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. Appearance: MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH(773) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3 MS. DHARITRI PANCHOLI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1, 3 MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date : 24/02/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI) Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Manish J. Patel, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for and on Page 1 of 22 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:01:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9841/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined behalf of respondent No. 2. Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, learned AGP, waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3. 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'BSNL', for short) to execute the registered sale deed in favor of present petitioner No. 1, being the successful bidder, in respect of vacant land bearing Plot No. 5D, CS No. 146 & 353, Opp. Panjarapole, GhodDod Road, Karimabad, Surat, Gujarat 395001, having Site Area 5359 Sqm., Builtup areaNil, having Geographical Coordinates: Latitude21.174629, Longitude72.814618 (hereinafter referred to as "land/property in question") and having property surroundings, as mentioned in the Request for Proposal (hereinafter referred to as "RFP") document, by obtaining No Objection Certificate (hereinafter referred to as "NOC") from District Collector, Surat, forthwith. 1.1 Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners in petitioner No.1 Limited Liability Partnership (hereinafter referred to as "LLP"), as claimed in the petition. Page 2 of 22 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Thu Feb 27 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 27 22:01:23
Course Ring Road, Rajkot360 Colony, Rajkot360 001 001 थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ADRPT 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent) CO. No. 01&02/RJT/2023 (a/o ITA No.134 & 135/Rjt/2023) (िनधारण वष/Assessment Year: (200708 & 200809) Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai The Income Tax Officer, Ward Thavrani, 4 Parsana Nagar, Shri 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, 5th Floor, Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Room No. 517, Race Course Ring Colony, Rajkot360 001 Vs. Road, Rajkot360001 थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ADRPT 5807 E (Applicant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 16/RJT/2019 (िनधारणवष / Assessment Year: (201011) Damjibhai Lekharj Tharvani Income Tax Officer, Ward C/o. Sarda & Sarda, CAs, 1st Floor, 1(2)(4), Aaykar Bhavan, 5th Vs. Floor, Room No. 506, Race "Sakar" Opp. Rajkumar College, Dr. Course Ring Road, Rajkot Radhakrishnan Road, Rajkot360 001 1 1. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA 2. DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI Rajkot 360001 360 001 थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEYPT 7701 B (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 31,32,33/RJT/2019 (िनधारण वष / Assessment Year: (200910 to 201112) Incometax Officer, Ward2, Shree Damjibhai Lekhraj Thavrani, Junagadh Incometax Office, 302Sai Darsan Apartment, Bhutnath Chambers, Opp. Vs. Adarshnagar2, Joshipura, Bahauddin College, College Junagadh362 001 Road, Junagadh 362 001 थायीलेखास.ं /जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AEYPT 7701 B (Appellant) (Respondent) CO. No. 02 to 04/RJT/2019 (a/o ITA Nos.31 to 33/RJT/2019) (िनधारण वष / Assessment Years: (200910 to 201112) Shree Damjibhai Lekhraj Thavrani, Incometax Officer, Ward2, 302Sai Darsan Apartment, Junagadh Incometax Office, Adarshnagar2, Joshipura, Bhutnath Chambers, Opp. Junagadh362 001 Vs. Bahauddin College, College Road, Junagadh 362 001 थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEYPT 7701 B (Applicant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील स.ं /ITA No. 171/RJT/2015 (िनधारण वष/Assessment Year: (200607) Bharatkumar Ishwarbhai Asstt. Commissioner of Bhatiya 301, UVI Palace, Vs. Income Tax Central Circle Wing 1, Opp. Gitanjali 1, Rajkot College, Sadhu Vasvani 2 1. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA 2. DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI Road, Rajkot थायी ले खा सं /.जीआइ आर सं / .PAN/GIR No.: AIRPB 2097 F (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./IT(SS)A No. 01 to 06 /Rjt/2018 (िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: (200708 to 201213) Bharatkumar Ishwarbhai Asstt. Commissioner of Bhatiya Income Tax Central Circle Vs. 1, Rajkot 301, UVI Palace, Wing 1, Opp. Gitanjali College, Sadhu Vasvani Road, Rajkot 360 001 थायी ले खा सं /.जी आइ आर सं /.PAN/GIR No.: AIRPB 2097 F
5. Rebutting the said submissions, leaned counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant writ petition is maintainable as the impugned order has been passed in appeal by the respondent no. 4. He further submits that the petitioners had approached this Court earlier on five occasions and this is sixth round of litigation. He further submits that the Division Bench as well as the Single Bench of this Court on various occasions, on almost identical set of facts, not only maintained the writ petition, but also directed for resuming the supply to the petitioners therein. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgements in M/s Modern Service Station Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited & 5 Others [Writ C No. 13514/2022, decided on 18.05.2023], M/s Kamalkant Automobiles & Another Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Others [2019 (3) ADJ 307 (DB)], M/s Chaudhary Filling Point, Kazipur & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Others [2019 (3) ADJ 345 (DB) (LB)] as well as Writ C No. 67004 of 2014 (M/s Sainik Krishak Sewa Kendra vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another) which was disposed of by this Court on 6.9.2016 after considering various judgements of the Apex Court and submits that the writ petition is maintainable. 6. After considering the submissions of the parties and the judgements relied upon, hereinabove, recently, this Court in the case of M/S Aliganj Kisan Seva Kendra, Aliganj & Another Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & 3 Others [Writ C No. 16998 of 2023, decided on 04.09.2023], after detailed discussion on the matter of maintainability of the writ petition on an identical set of facts, has not only maintain the writ petition, but also directed to resume the supply of retail outlet of the petitioner therein. This Court has held as under: "11. So far as the law laid down by this Court in the case of M/s ECI SPICSMOMCMI (JV) (Supra) is concerned, the Court after considering the material on record in that case has dismissed the petition on the ground of availability of arbitration clause and same view has also been express by the Apex Court in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia (supra). 12. Further in the case of Mrs. Sanjana M. Wig(supra), the parties themselves had appeared before the Arbitrator and settled their dispute to pay certain amount in instalments with interest but the appellant committed default in payment for some reasons, therefo