abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
M.M.C.Doortech Services Private Limited, No.22, 6th Cross Street, Trustpuram, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. ... Respondent Prayer : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 11.06.2021 passed in MSEFC/CR/230/2019 on the file of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Chennai Region. Page 1 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1910 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.9727 of 2022 For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sharath Chandran Mr.T.M.Mano For Respondent : Mr.B.Leelesh Sundaram ORDER The present petition is filed against the impugned award dated 11.06.2021 passed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSE) Facilitation Council, Chennai Region in MSEFC/CR/230/2019. It is essential to go into the facts of the case before taking a decision on the validity of the said award by the MSE Facilitation Council. 2.In brief the facts are as follows: The respondent company is engaged in the business of supply and installation of dorma fittings and registered as a MSME under the MSMED Act, 2006 possessing Udyog Aadhaar No. TN02D0154606. They had supplied dorma fittings to the petitioner company vide two invoices DSI1035 and DSI336 dated 13.11.2013 for which the payment of Rs.2,53,332/ was not forthcoming. The respondent company appealed to the MSE Facilitation Council for early settlement of the outstanding dues on 25.09.2019. The council after hearing the counsels of both the Page 2 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1910 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.9727 of 2022 parties on different dates decided that the respondent company was entitled to recover the principal amount of Rs.2,53,332/ along with the interest at the rate of three times the bank rate as stipulated in Sections 15 & 16 of MSMED Act, 2006 from the date of invoice till the date of settlement. This award was dated 11.06.2021. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition challenging the award. 3.Heard Mr.K.Sharath Chandran & Mr.T.M.Mano, learned counsels appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr.B.Leelesh Sundaram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the present revision petitioner contended that the impugned award dated 11.06.2021 was
proposals about the various goods on mutually agreed terms and conditions, defendant placed an order CR1240 dated 30.06.2018 for manufacturing and delivery of 2500 Tshirts in various sizes, customized as per requirements and the total cost agreed upon for the said order was Rs.5,70,725/ payable upon delivery of the goods ordered. It is averred that defendant was made clear that the goods once sold are not returnable and upon any defaults in clearing the due payments (the plaintiff being an establishment under the MSME policy of the Government) defendant shall be liable to pay an interest @ 18% per annum upon each default, after the passage of 45 days since the delivery of the goods. 2.2 It is averred that plaintiff supplied goods comprising of 2500 Tshirts which were duly received and acknowledged by defendant, and only after close and complete scrutiny of the products so received, defendant accepted the delivery, but did not made the immediate payment against the said delivery. It is stated that out of the mutual trust and faith and already running business relations, plaintiff raised no objection towards the non clearance of said dues of Rs.5,70,725/ and thereafter at various occasions plaintiff tried to contact defendant and informed him about the long overdues to defendant. 2.3 It is stated that despite several efforts and continuous requests via various formal and informal channels and in furtherance to the same, an email dated 07.03.2019 was forwarded to defendant, wherein he was formally informed that unless the due payments are cleared, a formal complaint under the MSME policy will be initiated against defendant. It is averred that in reply to said email, defendant made the plaintiff communicate with its accounts department and thereafter on Comfia Ecom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Casa2Stays Pvt. Ltd. {CS(Comm) 83/2022} Page 2 of 18 every occasion, plaintiff agreed to fulfill the request put forth by defendant and its financial management team. It is stated that defendant further failed to clear the dues amounting to Rs.5,70,725/ and after several requests as per mail dated 03.05.2018, defendant provided the plaintiff with the demand of clearing the GSTR. It is stated that plaintiff had taken the due steps against the same and accordingly, on 13.05.2018, defendant was duly informed about the clearance of the said GSTR and the plaintiff had further requested defendant to clear the long over dues. 2.4 It is pleaded that defendant vide email dated 15.05.2018 promised to clear the dues, and in addition to that objected to payment of Rs.5.70 lacs, thereby declaring the amount to be disputed, however, no officials from defendant had taken any step to clear the said dispute over the computation of the amount. It is averred that although defendant had cleared various amounts out of the complete transactions with defendant, however, the bill raised against the invoice dated 30.06.2018 has still not been addressed by
Allahabad High Court Anil Kumar Mishra And Another vs ViceChancellor Harcourt Butler ... on 2 July, 2025 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:102530DB Court No. 21 Case : WRIT C No. 17287 of 2025 Petitioner : Anil Kumar Mishra And Another Respondent : ViceChancellor Harcourt Butler Technical University Kanpur And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner : Akarshita Mishra,Udai Shanker Mishra Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. The following prayers have been made in the writ petition: (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 to consider the demand letter dated 13/15.3.2025 for request of the release of balance pending amount of Rs. 1,73,82,133.00 (One Crore Seventy Three Lacs Eighty Two Thousand One Hundred Thirty Three) and pay the same earliest as directed by this Hon'ble Court. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 to pay the interest on the balance pending amount at the rate of 9%. 2. The prayer has been made in respect of certain work alleged to have been done by the petitioners in pursuance of a memorandum of understanding dated 23.5.2013 and the construction was allegedly completed in 2017. Apparently the claim is barred by limitation and even civil suit would not be maintainable, therefore, we decline to examine the claim in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 3. The writ petition stands dismissed. . (R.M.N. Mishra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date : 2.7.2025 Dhirendra/
Madras High Court M/S. Ivc Labs & Environmental Services vs MsefcChennai Regional Joint on 30 October, 2023 W.P. No. 25665 of 2022 DATED : 30.10.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU W.P. No. 25665 of 2022 and W.M.P. No. 24682 of 2022 M/s. IVC Labs & Environmental Services Rep. By its Sole Proprietor Dr.P.Vetriselvan IVC House, No.1048, Burmal Colony II Street, Perungudi Chennai600 096. … Petitioner vs 1. MSEFCChennai Regional Joint Director of Industries and Commerce ThiruVi.Ka Industrial Estate Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. 2. M/s. Chempure Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office : Sarvam House Plot Nos. 84 & 89, Door No. 63 Rajagopalapuram 5th Street Mowlivakkam, Chennai – 600 125. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 2050, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the First Respondent's order dated 27.05.2022 made in Application No.TN/08A0060584/M/0003 and quash the same as null and void consequently direct the First Respondent refer the claim of the Second Respondent made in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/9 W.P. No. 25665 of 2022 Online Application No. TN08A0060584/M/0003 to alternate dispute resolution by Arbitration in terms S.18 of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Developments Act, 2006. For Petitioner : Mr. A.Arumugam For Respondents : Mr. S.Yashwanth, AGP (R1) R2No appearance ORDER Heard Mr. A.Arumugam, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.Yashwanth, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the First Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2. The Second Respondent had made a claim in Case No. MSEFC/CR/32/2021 before the First Respondent under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MSMED Act' for short), claiming payment of Rs. 1,97,250/ from the Petitioner towards remaining amount due for goods supplied with interest calculated in terms of that Act, in which an order dated 27.05.2022 was passed holding that the Petitioner was liable to pay the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/9 W.P. No. 25665 of 2022 principal sum of Rs. 1,97,250/ together with compounded interest with monthly rests at three times of the Bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India as stipulated in Sections 15 and 16 of the MSMED Act, 2006 from the appointed due dates respectively till payment, which assailed in this Writ Petition. 3. In response to the query raised by the Court that if the Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, he has to only resort to filing of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the A & C Act' for short) to have it set aside as an arbitral award, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s. Vijeta Construction vs M/s. Indus Smelters Ltd. (Order dated 23.09.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 5934 of 2021), where after referring to the relevant provisions of the
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 Professi
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 23:59:07 ::: 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 23:59:07 ::: 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 Rs.50
Page 1 of 13 2 that accused informed the complainant about a project in relation to registration of online FIR being a project launched by the Government of India concerning online registration of FIRs, which was awarded by M/s Dream IT and M/s Dream IT agencies for completing the project hiring agencies and accused advised the complainant to invest a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/ for getting enrolled on the panel of M/s Dream IT for distribution of work. The accused assured the complainant that he is in business relation with M/s Dream IT and he would ensure that the work is granted in the favour of the complainant. The complainant agreed to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/ on his above mentioned assurance directly in the account of M/s Dream IT. Accused informed the complainant that the complainant would have to wait for a period of one month for work and he would surely get the work from M/s Dream IT. The complainant himself tried to inquire about the work to be given by M/s Dream IT and came to know that the same work has been granted in favour of M/s Fusion Services Pvt. Ltd. and accused is one of the partner of the M/s Fusion Services Pvt. Ltd. Accused in discharge of his legal liability to payable debt, issued a cheque bearing no. 001915 dated 15.04.2015 for Rs. 2,00,000/ drawn on ICICI Bank, Drawk Chowk, New Delhi in favour of the complainant, which on presentation was returned unpaid with the remarks "Stop payment" vide returning memo dated 22.05.2015. Thereafter, complainant sent a legal notice dated 10.06.2015 by way of speed post upon the accused which was duly received by the accused and despite that payment of the cheques in question was not made by the accused within the stipulated time of 15 days. Hence, the complaint. Chintu Kumar Vs. Arun Chauhan CC No. 468579/16 Page 2 of 13 3 2. In the presummo0ning evidence, affidavit by way of evidence Ex.CW1/A was filed by the complainant. In his affidavit of evidence Ex.CW1/A, the complainant reiterated all the averments made in his complaint and relied on documents are original cheque in question Ex. CW1/B, its return memos Ex. CW1/C & Ex. CW1/D, copies of legal notice Ex. CW1/E, postal receipt Ex. CW 1/F and the tracking report Ex. CW1/G. The complaint is Ex. CW1/H. After closure of presummoning evidence, since sufficient material was found against the accused, summoning order u/s 204 CrPC was passed against the accused vide order dated 03.08.2015. 3. Accused appeared pursuant to issuance of summons and notice U/s 251 CrPC
Delhi High Court Orders Birla Cable Limited vs Bharat Broadband Network Limited on 2 March, 2021 $~18 * + ARB.P. 549/2020 BIRLA CABLE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through Mr Narender M. Sharma, Advocate. versus BHARAT BROADBAND NETWORK LIMITED ..... Respondent Through Mr Nikhilesh Krishnan, Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 02.03.2021 [Hearing held through videoconferencing] 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the 'A&C Act'), inter alia, praying that an Arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 2. The respondent (hereafter 'BBNL') had floated a tender on 03.04.2013 for supply of 24 Fibre Metal free Optical Fibre Cable with double Sheath (G.652D) and accessories. The Tender Conditions included an Arbitration Clause. 3. The petitioner submitted its bid pursuant to the aforesaid invitation to tender. 4. The petitioner's bid for 'Package F' was accepted on 10.02.2014. BBNL issued an Advance Purchase Order (APO) on the said date. After the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL petitioner had complied with the conditions mentioned in the APO, BBNL issued a Purchase Order (PO) for 'Package F' on 28.03.2014. 5. According to the petitioner, there was a change in classification of the product in question resulting in the change in the Excise Duty as factored by BBNL. It had proceeded on the basis that the product in question attracted Excise Duty of 10.30% instead of 12.36%. The petitioner claims that it forwarded a certificate from the concerned authorities certifying the applicable rate of Excise Duty, Educational Cess and Higher Education Cess. 6. The petitioner claims that apart from the Purchase Order for 'Package F' the petitioner was also issued other Purchase Order for other Packages. 7. The petitioner claims that the petitioner had demanded the differential amount which according to the petitioner was payable to it. The said demand was not met and consequently on 10.08.2020 the petitioner issued a notice invoking the Arbitration Clause. 8. Admittedly, the Arbitration Clause is set out in the General Conditions of the Contract. The said clause is set out below: "III.20. ARBITRATION III.20.1. In the event of any question, dispute or difference arising under this agreement or in connection therewith (except as to the matters, the decision to which is specifically provided under this agreement), the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the CMD, BBNL or in case his designation is changed or his office is abolished, then in such cases to the sole arbitration of the officer for the time being entrusted (whether in addition to his own duties or otherwise) with the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL functions of the CMD, BBNL or by whatever designation such an officer may be called (hereinafter referred to as the said offi
1.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 1(1), Room No.611, 6th Floor, Wanaparthy Block, Aayakar Bhawan, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. 2.Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Aayakar Bhawan, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the impugned order in letter No.ITBA/ASP/F/17/201920/1020200226(1) dated 11.11.2019 along with the notice bearing No.ITBA/AST/S/148/201819/1015582481(1) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/35 W.P.No.4584 of 2020 dated March 30, 2019 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the 1st respondent for the AY 20122013. For Petitioner : Mr.N.V.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.B.Ramana Kumar Senior Panel Counsel ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned notice dated 30.03.2019 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to re open the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the impugned order dated 11.11.2019 passed by the 1st respondent for the Assessment Year 20122013. 2.By the impugned order dated 11.11.2019, the 1st respondent has overruled the objection of the petitioner against reopening of the assessment that was completed on 31.01.2017 for the Assessment Year 20122013under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act,1961. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/35 W.P.No.4584 of 2020 3.Relevant portion of the impugned order dated 11.11.2019 passed by the 1st respondent for the Assessment Year 20122013 overruling the objection of the petitioner against reopening of the assessment completed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31.07.2017 reads as under: “6.1.It is evident from the above facts that the assessee had not truly and fully disclosed material facts necessary for his assessment for the year under consideration thereby necessitating reopening u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961. 6.2.It is true that the assessee has filed a copy of annual report and audited Profit & Loss Account and Balance