abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Madras High Court S.Srividya vs / Crl.O.P.No.12149 of 2021 RESERVED ON : 08.09.2023 PRONOUNCED ON: 14.09.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM Crl.O.P.No.12149 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos.6853 & 6854 of 2021 1.S.Srividya 2.Mohana Ramaswami ... Petitioners /vs/ State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences WingII, Guindy, Chennai – 32. ... Respondent Prayer : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.6 of 2020 on file of the Special Court for TNPID Act offences, Chennai. For Petitioner ... Ms.T.Sugirtha For Respondent ... Mr.L.Baskaran Govt.Advocate (Crl.side) Page 1 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12149 of 2021 ORDER Challenging the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.6 of 2020 on file of the Special Court for TNPID Act offences, Chennai, the present criminal original petition has been filed. 2.The prosecution case is that based on the complaint dated 21.10.2013 given by Mr.G.Ramadoss, Velachery 42 against M/s.Viswapriya Financial Services and Securities Ltd., @ M/s.Viswapriya (India) Ltd., and six others, the case is registered in Crime No.5 of 2013 by the respondent police. The allegations in the FIR are that the complainant Mr.G.Ramadoss had invested a total sum of Rs.6,60,000/ in M/s.Viswapriya Financial Services and Securities Ltd., @ M/s.Viswapriya (India) Ltd.,(A1 Company) in seven deposits in the names of his family members and the said company has defaulted to repay the deposits and the interest accrued thereon. 3.The investigation has revealed that the company (A1) M/s.Viswapriya Financial Services and Securities Private Ltd., was started Page 2 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.12149 of 2021 in the year 1991 in ROC No.1820796 of 1991 and started its nonbanking activities from the date of incorporation i.e. on 13.05.1991. The Company within four months from the date of incorporation removed the word “Private” from its name and became a Limited liability Company on 03.09.1991 in the name of M/s.Viswapriya Financial Services and Securities Ltd. (A1). The company was recognized as a NonBanking Financial company (NBFC) by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and issued NBFC license on 20.04.1998. Against prudential norms of NBFC, the company collected deposits from the public and invested in Real Estate Businesses. It received deposits under various schemes from the public for an assured interest rate of 10 to 12% for a fixed period of time. RBI which conducted inspection at the Company cancelled the NBFC license on 06.08.2005. 4.Thereafter, on 02.06.2011, the Company changed its name to M/s.Viswapriya (India) Ltd., in CIN No.U65991TN1991PLC020796 and continued collecting deposits under various schemes and diverted the money to other companies for
Delhi High Court Orders Chinar Steel Industries vs Ircon International Ltd on 20 September, 2022 $~3 * + ARB.P. 1019/2022 & I.A. 14050/2022 [Condonation of delay] CHINAR STEEL INDUSTRIES ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Jyoti Goyal, Advocate. [M;8053370817] versus IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. S.K. Chandwani and Mr. Sameer Chandwani, Advocates. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN ORDER % 20.09.2022 1. By way of the present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ["the Act"], the petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes which have arisen between the parties under an agreement dated 15.09.2008 for construction of foot over bridges on the QazigundBaramulla Section of the rail line project in Jammu and Kashmir ["the Agreement"]. Although the prayer clause of the petition refers to an agreement dated 20.05.2008, Ms. Jyoti Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that this is a typographical error and the correct date of the agreement is 15.09.2008. 2. In the Agreement, the parties have incorporated an arbitration clause in Clause 49, which contemplates reference to an arbitrator, to be Signature Not Verified Digitally signed ARB.P. 1019/2022 Page 1 of 4 By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:21.09.2022 17:27:42 appointed by the Managing Director of the respondent. In Clause 49.2, the qualification and the fees of the arbitrator have been stated in the following terms: "49.2 QUALIFICATION & FEE OF ARBITRATION a) The fees and other charges of the Conciliator/ Arbitrator shall be as per the scales fixed by the Employer from time to time and shall be shared equally between the Employer and the Contractor. b) The minimum qualifications of Conciliator/ Arbitrator shall be graduate in Engineering. He may be working or retired officer with a minimum of 20 years service in Group A of any Engineering Service of Central Government or any equivalent service in a Central PSU. He should be clear from the vigilance angle and should be a person with reputation of high technical ability and integrity. Also, he should not have associated with the contract to which the dispute pertains." 3. Exclusive jurisdiction has been vested in the courts in Delhi by virtue of Clause 51. 4. The respondent sought to terminate the Agreement by a communication dated 18.11.2008, which was disputed by the petitioner. Correspondence ensued between the parties by exchange of legal notices, including invocation of arbitration by a letter dated 14.04.2009. 5. The petitioner first approached the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir under Section 11 of the Act [Arbitration Application No. 8/2009], which was dismissed by an order dated 16.08.2013 on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. A review petition [RPC No. 2J/2013] was also dismissed on 19.07.2018, following which the petitioner approached the Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Signature Not Verified Digitally signed ARB.P. 1019/2022
Delhi High Court Smt. K.S Sumi Mol vs Sh. Suresh Kumar E.K on 31 July, 2023 $~19 * % Date of decision: 31st July, 2023 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 127/2023 & CM APPL. 23305/2023 SMT. K.S. SUMI MOL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajeesh Kalathil Gope & Mr. Vineeth S, Advocates with appellant in person. versus SH. SURESH KUMAR E.K. ..... Respondent Through: None. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Vide the present appeal, the appellant is seeking following reliefs: "(i) Set aside the impugned order dated 07.02.2023 passed by Ld. Judge02, Family Court, SouthWest District, Dwarka District Courts, New Delhi in HMA Pet. No.2800/2017 and pass a judgment and draw a decree of divorce thereon based on the documentary evidences available on record in favour of the Appellate/Petitioner and against the Respondent by invoking provisions u/o VIII Rule10 of CPC r/w Section 148 & 151 of CPC and its inherent powers vested under article 227 of the Constitution of India as the respondent failed to place on record the written statement wilfully and deceitfully over a period of 5 years and 6 months (over a period of 2000 days); (ii) Kindly issue direction to Ld. Judge02, Family Court, SouthWest District, Dwarka District Courts, New Delhi to set aside the impugned order dated 07.02.2023 and to pass a Judgment and draw a decree of divorce thereon based on the documentary evidences available on record, in favour of the Appellant/Petitioner and against the MAT.APP. (F.C.) 127/2023 Page 1 of 8 Signature Not Verified DigitallySigned By:SAHIL SHARMA Signing Date:21.08.2023 18:25:16 Respondent by invoking provisions u/o VIII Rle10 of CPC as the respondent failed to place on record the written statement wilfully and deceitfully over a period of 5 years and 6 months (over a period of 2000 days); (iii) Pass any other order/direction in favour of the Petitioner/Appellant and against the Respondent as the fundamental rights of life and liberty guaranteed u/s Article 21 of the constitution of India is being curtailed as the Appellant/Petitioner is compelled to pursue the matter endlessly as case is being considered and hear at the cost of her beautiful life period as such the right to life and the liberty; (iv) Kindly, issue directions to the Ld. Judge02 Family Court, Dwarka District Courts, Dwarka to initiate proceedings against the Respondent with respect to the application u/s 340 Cr.PC r/w 195 Cr.PC dated 21.11.2022 and further application dated 27.04.2023, which is long pending adjudication; (v) Kindly pass other order with the vested inherent
Delhi High Court Orders Salus Enterprises vs Chief Executive Officer, Bureau Of ... on 26 February, 2021 $~1 * + ARB.P. 785/2019 SALUS ENTERPRISES ..... Petitioner Through: Ms Niharika Ahluwalia and Ms Sneha Kohli, Advocates. versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BUREAU OF PHARMA, PSU OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Ms M. Theepa, Mr Anand Kumar Pandey, Advocates. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 26.02.2021 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), inter alia, praying that that a Sole Arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties in connection with an Agreement dated 09.07.2015. The said Agreement includes an Arbitration Clause, which is set out below: "3.21 Dispute Resolution This agreement shall be deemed to have been made/executed at Delhi for all purpose. Normally, there should not be any scope of dispute between the BPPI and the CFA after entering into a mutually agreed valid contract/agreement. However, due to various unforeseen reasons, problems may arise during the progress of the contract/agreement leading to disagreement BPPI and the CFA shall first try to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL resolve the same amicably by mutual Consultation. If the parties fail to resolve the dispute by such mutual consultation within twentyone days, then, depending on the position of the case, either the BPPI or the CFS shall give notice to the other party of its intension to commence Arbitration procedure as per Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Such disputes/differences shall be referred to Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the President/CEO of BPPI. The venue of Arbitration shall be at New Delhi. The award published by the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties." 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that although there is no dispute as to the existence of the Arbitration Clause but the present petition is premature as necessary efforts to amicably resolve the disputes which is a precondition for invoking the Arbitration Clause have not been undertaken. This contention is countered by Ms Niharika Ahluwalia, the learned counsel for the petitioner. She submits that disputes in the present case relate to nonpayment of invoices. She states that initially discussions were held at the office of the respondent. During those meetings, the accounts were reconciled and, the petitioner was ensured that the payments will be made. 3. She referred to an email dated 14.02.2019, which indicates that certain discussions were held at the office of the respondent on 05.02.2019. The respondent responded to the aforesaid email on 01.03.2019. A plain reading of the said email indicates that the representative of the petitioner had visited the office of the respondent. However, according to the respondent, the payments were subject to further checking. The Respondent
Orissa High Court M/S T.R. Chemical Ltd vs Bajrang Metallics Ltd on 9 January, 2026 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17Jan2026 16:26:20 W.P.(C) No.24195 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). M/s T.R. Chemical Ltd., Sundargarh .... Petitioner(s) versus Bajrang Metallics Ltd., Sundergarh .... Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case throughHybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, Adv. For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Adv. DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:03.12.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:09.01.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The present Writ Petition arises out of an order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Commercial Court, Rourkela in ARBP No.03/31 of 20242025, whereby an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The Section 34 application before the Commercial Court was directed against an arbitral award dated 31.08.2016 passed in MSEFC Case No. 04 Page 1 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17Jan2026 16:26:20 of 2014 under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act. (ii) The dispute between the parties originates from a transaction relating to supply of iron ore fines and iron weighing for a value of Rs. 22,89,553, in respect of which deductions were made by the petitioner on the ground of substandard quality. (iii) Bajrang Metallic Ltd invoked Section 18 of the MSMED Act before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, registering MSEFC Case No. 04 of 2014 for a total claim of Rs.27,95,520.18, to which the petitioner filed its response. (iv) The Facilitation Council initially passed an order dated 10.09.2015 directing payment of principal and interest, which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 18902 of 2015. (v) By order dated 19.07.2016, this Court remanded the matter to the Facilitation Council with directions to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, particularly on the issue of interest, and to conclude the proceedings within a stipulated time. (vi) Pursuant to the remand, the Facilitation Council passed a fresh award dated 31.08.2016, recording that the principal amount stood paid, but directing payment of enhanced interest and future compound interest. (vii) After receipt of the award, the petitioner moved an application dated 03.10.2016 before the Facilitation Council seeking modification of the award, and thereafter challenged the award dated 31.08.2016 before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 20768 of 2016. Page 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed
M/s.Tata Motors Finance Ltd., ) a Company incorporated under Companies Act) 1956, having its Corporate office at Building A) 2nd Floor, Lodha 1 Think, Techno Campus, ) Off Pokhran Road 2, Thane (West), ) Thane 400 607. ) ..... Respondents ::: Downloaded on 04/03/2015 23:59:04 ::: Kvm 2/40 ARBP304.14 Mr.Rohan Cama, a/w. Mr.Sunil Chaturvedi for the Petitioner. Mr.Dinyar Madon, Senior Advocate, a/w.Mr.Kingshuk Banerjee, Mr.Yuvraj Choksy, i/b. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the Respondents. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. RESERVED ON : 18th FEBRUARY, 2015 PRONOUNCED ON : 4th MARCH, 2015 JUDGMENT : Admit. The respondents waive service. By consent of parties, matter is taken on board for final hearing. In view of the identical facts in all the eight petitions, by consent of parties all the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The petitioner in each of the petition aforesaid was the original respondent in the arbitration proceedings whereas the respondents herein were the original claimants. ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 304 OF 2014 3. I will first summarize the facts in Arbitration Petition No.304 of 2014 which is the main matter which has been argued by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short the said 'Arbitration Act'), the petitioner has impugned the arbtiral award dated 7th October, 2013 thereby allowing some of the claims made by the respondents. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under : 5. Sometime in the month of December 2009 the petitioner approached the respondents for a loan in the sum of Rs.19,64,000/for refinancing/purchasing the ::: Downloaded on 04/03/2015 23:59:04 ::: Kvm 3/40 ARBP304.14 vehicle. The respondents sanctioned the said loan and entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 30th December, 2009. The said loan amount with interest was repayable in the monthly installment of R
Delhi High Court Nbcc (India) Ltd. vs Micro Small And Medium Enterprises ... on 4 July, 2024 $~37. * + LPA 505/2024 & CM APPL. 35527/2024, CM APPL. 35529/2024 NBCC (INDIA) LTD. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Jagdeep Singh Bakshi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajnish Kumar Jha, Mr. Nishant Kr. Srivastava, Mr. Navroop Singh Bakshi, Advs. Mr. Vikash Kumar, DGM, Law. versus MICRO SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC, GNCTD with Ms. Arshya Singh, Mr. Yash Upadhyay, Mr. Siddharth Dutt, Advs. for R1. % Date of Decision: 04th July, 2024 HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL) CM APPL. 35530/2024 1. Present application has been filed for condonation of delay of eighty nine (89) days. 2. Keeping in view the averments in the application, the same is allowed. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT LPA 505/2024 Page 1 of 6 Signing Date:08.07.2024 10:50:37 LPA 505/2024 & CM APPL. 35527/2024, CM APPL. 35529/2024 3. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 16th February, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 15874/2023 whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the petition and referred the matter to Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) for initiating arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) of the Micro Small & Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006 and the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 as there are disputed questions of fact. 4. Learned senior counsel for the Appellant states that on 18th November, 2013, the Appellant floated a tender at the request of Directorate General of Health Services, Government of NCT Delhi ("DGHS") for construction of 200 beds at Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi and one Pratibha Industries Ltd. became the lowest bidder for the said work. He states that an Agreement was executed between Pratibha Industries Ltd. and the Appellant. 5. He further states that Pratibha Industries Ltd. issued a letter of Award in favour of Respondent no. 2 to execute the electrical work. 6. He states that Respondent No. 2 filed an application for recovery of amounts due before the Micro Small & Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council ("MSEFC"), Delhi on 19th August, 2021 and notice was issued to both the Appellant and Respondent no. 2 to appear before MSEFC, Delhi. He states that subsequently, Respondent No. 2 filed a Writ Petition bearing no. W.P. (C) 13032/2022 for issuance of direction to the Appellant to pay the outstanding dues along with interest whereby this Court vide order dated 8th September, 2022 dismissed the petition and left it open to Respondent No.
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 : Sun Jun 14 01:53:00 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 if
1. Three C Visuals, Rep.by its Partner Mr.C.V. Ramesh HT, 1 and 2, Tiny Sector, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai 600032. 2. The Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai Region at Thiruvika Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600032. .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Page 1 / 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.P.No.321 of 2021, A.No.2396 of 2021 and A.No.1656/2021 1996 to set aside the Arbitral Award dated 12/11/2019 passed by the learned Council to the extent it has awarded against the Petitioner and remit the case back to the Ld. Council to consider all the facts, pleadings and documents before it to pass new Award. For Petitioner : Mr. P.H.Aravindh Pandian Senior Counsel for M/s. Surana & Surana For Respondents : Mr. R. Subramanian for M/s.G. Rojathi for R1 Mr. Edwin Prabhakar Addl. Government Pleader for R2 ORDER Challenge has been made to the Award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council dated 12.11.2019. 2. Brief facts leading to the Respondent herein to file the petition is as follows: 2.a. It is the contention of the 1st Respondent that he supplied goods to the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.80,18,273/. This amount is payable by the Petitioner as against the invoices. The Petitioner herein, who is Respondent before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai Region (hereinafter Page 2 / 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.P.No.321 of 2021, A.No.2396 of 2021 and A.No.1656/2021 referred to as 'Council') took a stand in their counter that the 1 st Respondent engaged in certain unfair trade practices touching upon the integrity which worked against the business ethics and flawless reputation that the Petitioner has striven to build and hold for all these years. The Respondent in collusion with the Petitioner employee has escalated the purchase order for a higher rate than the prevailing, in doing so, unjustly enriched himself at the cost of Petitioner. Having found the conspiracy, the Petitioner herein terminated the services of employees who involved in the above practice. Only after finding the unfair trade practice committed by the Respondent, the payments were withheld. Hence, the matter has been referred to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai Region. It appears that conciliation meetings have been held on 28.01.2019, 18.02.2019 and 07.06.2019 and finally on 02.07.2019. After hearing both sides and analysed the materials placed bef