abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
M/s. Switchgears Private Limited ....Respondent Mr. Rohaan Cama with Ms. Pratiksha Basarkar I/b. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas,for the Petitioner. Mr. Vijay Vaidya with Mr. Mahendra Agvekar, for the Respondent. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : 19 DECEMBER 2025. P.C : 1) The Arbitration Petition challenges Award dated 15 March 2023 passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Nashik (Facilitation Council) awarding the claim of the Respondent in the sum of Rs.2,71,94,008/ alongwith interest under Section 16 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act). 2) There is no dispute to the position that the entire principal amount of Rs.2,71,94,008/ has already been paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent. Mr.Vaidya, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent admits this position. _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NO. 1 of 2 FRIDAY, 19 DECEMBER 2025 ::: Uploaded on 19/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on 19/12/2025 23:14:53 ::: Neeta Sawant 915CARBP3742024.docx 3) Infact, the Award also records that the principal amount has already been paid. The Award is only for payment of interest under Section 16 of the M.S.M.E.D.Act. 4) Mr.Vaidya, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, on instructions makes a statement that since the parties have amicably resolved the disputes, the Respondent is willing to forego the interest amount awarded by the Facilitation Council. In that view of the matter with the consent of the parties, the Award dated 15 March 2023 is set aside. The Arbitration Petition is allowed and disposed of. Digitally signed by NEETA NEETA SHAILESH [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] SHAILESH SAWANT SAWANT Date: 2025.12.19 15:23:35 +0530 _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NO. 2 of 2 FRIDAY, 19 DECEMBER 2025 ::: Uploaded on 19/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on 19/12/2025 23:14:53 :::
Judgment dated 20.10.2023 Page No. 1 of 31 Present: Sh. Dharmender Chaudhary Advocate for the plaintiff. None for the Defendant. JUDGMENT: (1) This Civil Suit has been filed by the plaintiff Arun Narula seeking recovery to the tune of Rs.24,73,507/­ (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs, Seventy Three Thousand, Five Hundred Seven only) along with pendent­elite and future interest from the defendant Vibhor Aggarwal. BRIEF FACTS: Case of the plaintiff: (2) The plaintiff Arun Narula is the Proprietor of M/s. Parul Agencies having office at 1802, Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi­11006 dealing in the business of telecommunications and shielded cables. The defendant Vibhor Aggarwal is stated to be the Proprietor of M/s. Shree Ganpati Electricals having office at 1737/8B, Bhagirath Palace, Delhi­ 110006. Here, I may note that initially the present suit was filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXVII CPC. (3) However, vide order dated 27.07.2019 the Ld. Predecessor of this Court treated the suit as an ordinary suit for recovery of money under Section 9 CPC. The case of the plaintiff is as under: Arun Narula Vs. Vibhor Aggarwal. CS (Comm.) No. 1195/2019 Judgment dated 20.10.2023 Page No. 2 of 31 ➢ That the defendant approached the plaintiff in his office for purchasing of goods from the plaintiff. ➢ That at the time of purchase the defendant assured the plaintiff that he will make the payment of the goods within ten days from the date of goods failing which he will make the payment with interest @ 12% per annum. ➢ That believing the version and assurances of the defendant, the plaintiff sent goods on various dates but the defendant avoided to make the payment to the plaintiff. ➢ That on 22.01.2018 the defendant made the last payment of Rs.1,50,000/­ and after adjusting the said amount a total sum of Rs.21,32,334/­ remains due upon the defendant as on 22.01.2018. ➢ That the plaintiff time and again contacted the defendant to make the payment of the outstanding amount but he kept on avoiding to make the payment on one pretext or the other. ➢ That being aggrieved from the callous, untoward and unprofessional attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff got served a Legal Notice dated 14.05.2019 through his counsel by Speed Post/ Registered AD thereby calling upon the defendant to pay the legitimate amount which legal notice was duly served upon the defendant but the defendant failed to make the payment nor sent any reply to the said legal notice. Arun Narula Vs. Vibhor Aggarwal. CS (Comm.) No. 1195/2019 Judgment dated 20.10.2023 Page No. 3 of 31 ➢ That the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.21,32,334/­ along with interest @12/% per annum from 22.01.2018 till the date of filing of the suit which comes to Rs.3,41,173.44p and hence, the total amount comes to Rs.24,73,507/­. ➢ That the plaintiff is further entitled
Delhi High Court Vishwajeet Singh And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 23 December, 2024 $~ * + CONT.CAS(C) 647/2024 VISHWAJEET SINGH AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Shreya Garg, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Ms. Suman Gupta and Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocates (M:9811129304) versus SH SUBHASISH PANDA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Deepika V. Marwaha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Standing Counsel, Mr. Nakul Ahuja, Panel Counsel, Mr. Tanishq Sharma, Mr. Akshay Pratap Singh, Advocates for DDA (M:9953992233) Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Hridyanshi Sharma, Advocate for UOI (M:9811199806) Ms. Puja Kalra, Standing Counsel with Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate for MCD (M:9312839323) + W.P.(C) 14960/2023 & CM APPL. 59755/2023, CM APPL. 67355/2023, CM APPL. 22037/2024 VISHWAJEET SINGH AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Shreya Garg, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Ms. Suman Gupta, and Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocates (M:9811129304) Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS(C) 647/2024 & other connected matters Page 1 of 145 Digitally Signed By:AMAN UNIYAL Signing Date:23.12.2024 18:59:08 versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Deepika V. Marwaha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Standing Counsel, Mr. Nakul Ahuja, Panel Counsel, Mr. Tanishq Sharma, Mr. Akshay Pratap Singh, Advocates for DDA (M:9953992233) Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Sarvan Kumar, Advocate for UOI (M:9910483635) Ms. Puja Kalra, Standing Counsel with Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate for MCD (M:9312839323) Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Advocate for
Orissa High Court Sukumar Midya vs State Of Odisha & Others ..... Opp. ... on 17 September, 2024 W.P.(C) No. 16840 of 2024 Sukumar Midya ..... Petitioner Mr. Arjuna Charana Behera, Advocate versus State of Odisha & Others ..... Opp. Parties Ms. Suman Pattanaik, A.G.A. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 17.09.2024 Order No. 02. This matter is taken up through hybrid Mode. 2. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: "Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to Admit this Writ Petition, issue rule Nisi for calling upon the opp. Parties, particularly opp. Party No.4 for show cause as to why the direction will not be issued for immediate sanction and disbursement of the balance pending amount in favour of the petitioner. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to make its rule absolute if the said opp. Party fails to submit sufficient cause or show insufficient cause and after hearing from the parties, this Hon'ble court may direct in the writ of Mandamus to the opp. Parties particularly opp. Party No. 4 to sanction and disburse the balance pending amount as per the agreement executed on 20.04.2023 to the petitioner with an immediate effect, for the interest of justice and equity as this case in question. Page 1 of 2 This Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass any order(s) may direct any direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in this case. And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray" 3. Mr. Arjuna Charana Behera, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner files a memo supported by an affidavit which is taken on record. It is stated in the memo that the opposite parties have paid the pending amount after receiving notice in this writ application for which the petitioner does not want to proceed with the case. 4. In view of the above development, the writ application is dismissed as withdrawn. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice (Savitri Ratho) Judge Sukanta/Puspa Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Page 2 of 2 Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 18Sep2024 19:01:50
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.17010/2018 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.17010/2018 several years, he has good and cordial relationship with the complainant. It is further contended that, the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/ from the complainant and promised to repay the same within short time and had issued a cheque bearing No.530205 dated 25.03.2018 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/ 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.669020 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.17010/2018 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 reported in AIR
Delhi High Court Orders M/S Aryavrat Tollways Pvt. Ltd. (Atpl) vs Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corpn. ... on 22 July, 2024 $~2 * + ARB.P. 107/2024 M/S ARYAVRAT TOLLWAYS PVT. LTD. (ATPL) .....Petitioner Through: Mr Anukul Raj, Ms Nikita Raj, Mr Tushar Bhalla and Mr Pratik Sharma, Advs. versus MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD. (MPRDC) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr Saurabh Mishra, Sr. Adv. with Mr Karthik Sundar, Mr Kushagra Singh, Mr Aalok Kumar, Mr Swastik Singh and Mr Hitesh Gupta, Advs. for R 1/MPRDC. Mr Sanjeev Sagar, Standing Counsel for SBI with Ms Nazia Parveen, Ms Sonam Saini, Ms Preeti Saxena, Ms Sunidhi, Ms Payal Kurichh, Mr Akash Yadav, Ms Deepti Chauhan and Mr Varun Dixit, Advs. for R2/SBI. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH ORDER % 22.07.2024 1. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of the Tripartite Agreement dated 22.05.2014 executed between the petitioner, respondent No.1 and respondent No.2. The arbitration clause is Clause 9 of the Tripartite Agreement and it reads as under: This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be reverified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/07/2024 at 20:30:43 "9 DISPUTE RESOLUTION 9.1 Any dispute, difference or claim arising out of or in connection with this Agreement which is not resolved amicably within [15] days of communication thereof shall be decided finally by reference to arbitration to a Board of three Arbitrators comprising of one nominee of the Party which is the Claimant is such dispute, one nominee of the Empowered Institution and the third to be appointed in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration of the International Centre of Alternative Dispute Resolution, New Delhi (the "Rules"). Such arbitration shall be held in accordance with the said Rules and shall be subject to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 9.2 The Arbitrators shall issue a reasoned award and such award shall be final and binding on the Parties. The venue of arbitration shall be Delhi and the language of arbitration shall be English." 2. A perusal of the Tripartite Agreement shows that the State Bank of India (SBI) represents the Lead Institution. 3. Since there were disputes bet
Delhi High Court Surya Food & Agro Ltd vs Om Traders & Anr on 20 January, 2023 2023/DHC/000494 % Judgment delivered on: 20.01.2023 + RFA(OS)(COMM) 28/2019 SURYA FOOD AND AGRO LIMITED ..... Appellant versus OM TRADERS AND ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Darpan Wadhwa, Senior Advocate with Mr N. Mahabir, Mr P.C. Aryaa and Mr Noopur Biswas, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr Sanjay Kumar Shandilya, Mr Apoorva Agrawal, Mr Abhishek Singh, Mr Hemant Sharma, Mr Adit Srivastava and Ms Shambhavi Singh, Advocates for R2. CORAM HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J 1. The appellant has filed the present intra court appeal impugning a judgment dated 26.03.2019 (hereafter 'the impugned judgment') passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the appellant's suit, CS(COMM) 10/2019 captioned Surya Food and Agro Limited v. Om Traders & Anr., was dismissed. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal RFA(OS)(COMM) 28/2019 Page 1 of 38 Signing Date:23.01.2023 2023/DHC/000494 2. The appellant had filed the abovecaptioned suit alleging infringement of copyright, passing off, rendition of accounts and damages. The petitioner, inter alia, sought a decree of permanent injunction against the respondent (defendant) from selling, offering for sale any goods, advertising or promoting any product under the packaging, getup and/or trade dress of the defendant's product 'BUTTER KRUNCH' or any other packaging, getup and/or trade dress that is deceptively similar to the appellant's product 'BUTTER DELITE'. 3. The learned Single Judge declined the appellant's (plaintiff's) prayer for interim relief and at the next effective hearing, dismissed the suit as the Court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. Factual Context 4. The appellant, a company incorporated in the year 1992, is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of cookies, cakes, confectionaries juices and beverages. The appellant is the owner of several trademarks such as "Butter Bite", "Italiano", "Classic Crème", "Bourbon Crème", "CNC", "Snacks Zig Zag", "Puff Crème", "Cheese Cracker", "Cheez Bit", "Snakker", "Marie Lite Biscuits", "Oats Bite", "Butter Milk", "Crackle Coconut", "Choco Chekkers", "Jeera Top", Cashew, "Magic Cake", "Choco Gold", "Hungger", "Kickker", "coffito", "Toffito", "Treat" and "Fresh Gold". Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal RFA(OS)(COMM) 28/2019 Page 2 of 38 Signing Date:23.01.2023 2023/DHC/000494 5. Respondent no.1, Om Traders, is a retailer selling products of respondent no.3 (Raja Udyog Private Limited). 6. The appellant had filed a suit in respect of its product sold under the trademark "BUTTER DELITE". The appellant claimed that its product is highly successful, reputed, and wellknown in the market. It claimed that it commen
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. Appearance: MR. P.K. JANI, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR ARPIT A KAPADIA(3974) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,30,31,32, 33,34,35,4,5,6,7,8,9 MS. HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR. KAMAL TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL, WITH MR KAUSHAL D PANDYA(2905) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 MR SATYAM Y CHHAYA(3242) for the Respondent(s) No. 4 SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 06/01/2025 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) 1. Having heard Mr. P.K. Jani, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. Arpit Kapadia, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General with Mr. Kaushal Pandya, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.3 and Ms. Hetal Patel, learned AGP appearing for the respondent No.1 and perused the record, we find that the issues raised before the writ Court by 46 members of the respondent No.4 Society namely, the Surat Textile Market Cooperative Shops & Warehouses Society Limited are Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Thu Jan 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 09 21:35:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/5/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/01/2025 undefined pertaining to a contract, which is a lease deed executed between the respondent No. 4 Society and Surat Municipal Corporation. The lease deed signed by the Society comprising of 900 members was executed on 30.9.2021. 2. The initial lease was granted in favour of the Society for 50 years on 18.4.1968 and on the expiry of lease period, on the request made by the Society, renewal was granted for a period of 99 years at the rates agreed between the contracting parties. The fact that the petitioners herein (46 in number) are members of the Society and no issue has been raised by the Society, which is the contracting party about determination of the lease rent, is sufficient to reject the claim of the petitioners agitating the issue about the quantum of lease rent. 3. It is
1. The Chairperson, Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai / Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce, Guindy, Chennai 32. 2. The Secretary, Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai, Guindy, Chennai 32. 3. S.Senthil Kumar .. Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for records and quash th impugned order dated 25.02.2020 in MSEFC/CR/6/2019 passed by the 1st respondent. For Petitioner : Mrs.Abhitha Banu for Mrs.K.Pavithra For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.S.Rajesh https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/11 W.P.No.14041 of 2020 Government Advocate For Respondent 3 : Mr.M.Kandasamy ORDER Challenging the order dated 25.02.2020, passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.46,26,595/ along with compounded interest, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition is that the 3rd respondent is engaged in the activity of Business of Electrical Supply, Installation, Testing and Commissioning Work and possesses UAM No.TN08E0045836. Towards the 14 invoices issued by the petitioner the 3rd respondent is yet to receive payment to the tune of Rs.46,26,595/ towards principal together with interest. 3. Therefore, the matter has been referred to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council by the third respondent. After granting various adjournments to the parties finally the Council passed the impugned order directing the writ petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.46,26,595/ along with https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/11 W.P.No.14041 of 2020 compounded interest with monthly rests at three times the bank rate. 4. The main contention of the third respondent in the counter is that the Award passed by the Council cannot be challenged in a writ petition and it can be challenged only under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by depositing 75% of the award amount. To avoid deposit of such amount in the appeal, writ petition has been filed. It is the case of the 3rd respondent that the invoices raised in a commercial contract has been defaulted and therefore the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council has considered the same and passed the order in accordance with law. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner though raised so many grounds in the writ petition, the main contention is that the impugned order is against the statutory procedure provided under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act).
Madras High Court M/S.Sri Mookambigai Constructions vs The Micro on 23 September, 2024 W.P. No.30385 of 2017 DATED: 23.09.2024 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P. No.30385 of 2017 and W.M.P. Nos.33124 of 2017 and 6474 of 2018 M/s.Sri Mookambigai Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Rep. By its Director, K.M. Namachivayam ..... Petitioner vs. 1. The Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, Facilitation Council, Chennai Region, Rep. by its Zonal Officer, Coimbatore Region / General Manager, District Industries Centre, Coimbatore. 2. M/s. Premier Plate Fabrications, Rep. by its Managing Partner, S.M. Sadhasivam, No.355/1B, Abbas Garden, Near Luna Nagar, TVS Nagar, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore. .... Respondents https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/17 W.P. No.30385 of 2017 Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in Case No.M & SEFC/CBER/4/2016, dated 17.11.2016, on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and further to direct the first respondent to decide the matter on merits in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr. K. Chozhan For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, Addl. Government Pleader for R1 Mr.A.V. Arun for Mr.P. Kumanan for R2 ORDER This writ petition has been filed to call for the records in Case No.M & SEFC/CBER/4/2016, dated 17.11.2016, on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and further to direct the first respondent to decide the matter on merits in accordance with law. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The 2nd respondent had approached the petitioner for supply of MC molds for the unit of the petitioner and based on the specifications, the 2nd respondent issued quotation and being satisfied with the said quotation, the petitioner had issued Purchase Order for the same. Further at the time of placing Purchase Order, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/ was paid to the 2nd https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/17 W.P. No.30385 of 2017 respondent for the aforesaid job. While so, it is stated that the products supplied by the 2nd respondent was not as per the specifications and the same was also reported to the 2nd respondent, but no action was taken by the 2nd respondent to rectify the same and instead the 2nd respondent urged the petitioner for payment of the balance amount. At this juncture, the petitioner had cancelled the order and sent an email to that effect. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent approached the 1st respondent, who in turn issued the impugned demand, dated 17.11.2016, thereby the petitioner was directed to pay compensation to the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved over the same, this writ petition has been filed.