abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Delhi High Court Casa 2 Stays Pvt. Ltd. vs Comfia Ecom Private Ltd. on 13 May, 2024 % Judgment delivered on:13.05.2024 + RFA(COMM) 187/2023 &CAV 445/2023 CASA 2 STAYS PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant versus COMFIA ECOM PRIVATE LTD. ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr. Harish Malik, Advocate For the Respondent :Ms. Tanu Singhal, Mr. Nilansh Singhal, and Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocates. CORAM HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J 1. The appellant (defendant in the suit hereafter also referred to as the defendant) has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment and decree dated 21.03.2023 (hereafter the impugned judgment) as corrected by an order dated 09.08.2023, delivered by the learned Commercial Court in CS(COMM) No.83/2022 captioned Comfia Ecom Private Limited v. Casa 2 Stays Private Limited. In terms of the impugned judgment, the learned Commercial Court has decreed a sum of ₹8,49,385/ along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RFA (COMM) No.187/2023 Page 1 of 18 RAWAL Signing Date:13.05.2024 from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the decretal amount in favour of the respondent (plaintiff in the suit hereafter also referred to as the plaintiff). Additionally, the learned Commercial Court also decreed costs quantified at ₹32,640/ in favour of the plaintiff. 2. The impugned judgment as originally delivered had decreed an amount of ₹5,91,906/. However, the said figure was corrected in terms of the order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the learned Commercial Court pursuant to an application preferred by the plaintiff under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter the CPC). The defendant also impugns the said order dated 09.08.2023 in the present appeal. 3. The plaintiff had filed the said suit [CS (COMM) 83/22] for recovery, alleging that it had supplied goods (Tshirts) to the defendant. However, the amounts payable in terms of the invoices raised were not fully discharged. It claimed that the dispute between the parties, essentially, related to the supply of 2500 number of T shirts, which were covered under an invoice dated 30.06.2018 (Ex.PW1/2A) for an amount of ₹5,70,725/. 4. The plaintiff had also produced the ledger account of the defendant as maintained in its books of account for the period 01.04.2018 to 22.08.2020, which reflected the outstanding amount of ₹5,91,906/ (Ex.PW1/6). The learned Commercial Court accepted that the plaintiff had established that the amount as reflected was owed Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RFA (COMM) No.187/2023 Page 2 of 18 RAWAL Signing Date:13.05.2024 by the defendant to the plaintiff and accordingly, decreed the aforesaid amount. In addition, the learned Commercial Court also accepted that the plaintiff was entitled to presuit interest quantified at ₹2,57,479/ and accordingly, rendered the impugned judgment. 5. The defendant disputes its liability to pay the amount as claimed by the plaintiff and assails the impugned judgment on several grounds.
Delhi High Court Abb India Limited vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited on 2 November, 2020 $~ * Reserved on: 16th October,2020 Pronounced on: 2nd November,2020 + O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 48/2020 & I.A. 7876/2020 ABB INDIA LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Mohna M. Lal, Ms. Geetali Talukdar and Mr. Debasis Modak, Advs. versus BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Atul Shanker Mathur, Mr. Prabal Mehrotra and Mr. Umang Katariya, Advs. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR % JUDGMENT 1. This petition, under Section 14(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act"), seeks a declaration that the mandate of Mr. A. Muraleedharan, Advocate, who was appointed as sole arbitrator by the respondent, to arbitrate on the disputes between the petitioner and respondent, stands terminated de jure, and also calls on this Court to appoint a substitute arbitrator, to continue with the arbitral proceedings. 2. The issue in controversy is purely legal in nature. No detailed allusion to facts is, therefore, necessary. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 48/2020 Page 1 of 34 Signing Date:02.11.2020 16:29:21 3. In connection with three Letters of Award, dated 4 th November, 2009, whereunder work was awarded, to the petitioner by the respondent, disputes arose. Clause 33.1 of the General Commercial Terms and Conditions (hereinafter referred to as "GCC"), governing the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent, provided for resolution of such disputes, and read thus: "33.1 In the event of any dispute or difference arising out of the execution of the Order/Contract or the respective rights and liabilities of the parties or in relation to interpretation of any provision by the Seller/Contract in any manner touching upon the Order/Contract, such dispute of difference shall (except as to any matters, the decision of which is specifically provided for therein) be referred to the arbitration of the person appointed by the competent authority of the Purchaser. Subject as aforesaid, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (India) or statutory modifications or reenactments thereof and the rules made thereunder and for the time being in force shall apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause." 4. The Senior Deputy General Manager (hereinafter referred to as "the Senior DGM") in the office of the respondent wrote, on 14th March, 2014, to the Executive Director of the respondent (who was the "competent authority" within the meaning of Clause 33.1 of the GCC), alleging defaults on the petitioner's part, and calling on the Executive Director (hereinafter referred to as "ED") to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the claims of the respondent. A copy of the letter was marked to the petitioner, as "counter party". The petitioner, vide response dated 15th March, 2014, denied the allegations. The ED
through its Secretary & others in WPS No. 3010/2018 and other analogous cases, once the outstanding issue of release of part gratuity and part group insurance is resolved, as per the mechanism devised by the court therein, this balance amount under those heads would also be released in an expeditious manner. 3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Board in the light of the relevant material facts taken note above. At this stage, this writ petition is being disposed of with the following directions: Claim for admissible dues of the petitioner be examined by the competent authority / Respondent No. 2 after scrutiny of the service record of the employee in accordance with law and informed decision be taken within a reasonable time, preferably twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Admissible dues be also released without any delay thereafter. The balance admissible dues, if any, towards part gratuity and part group insurance lying with 2 the erstwhile BSAMB / counterpart State of Bihar, be released as per the resolution of the issue arrived at between the two Bodies in the light of the order dated 30.10.2018 in an expeditious manner thereafter. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/
Madhya Pradesh High Court Gannon Dunkerley And Co. Limited ... vs Micro And Small Enterprises ... on 9 January, 2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR ON THE 9th OF JANUARY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 30511 of 2023 BETWEEN: GANNON DUNKERLEY AND CO. LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY RAMESH MISHRA OCCUPATION: BUSINESS SITE OFFICE 2 AMBER BUILDING MG ROAD INDORE 452001 MUMBAI OFFICE A 501502 BUSINESS SQUARE 151 ANDHERI KURLA ROAD CHAKALA ANDHERI E MUMBAI 400093 REGD OFFICE NEW EXCELSIOR BUILDING 3RD FLOOR A.K. NAYAK MARG FOR T MUMBAI MH 400001 (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER SHRI VIVEK DALAL,ADVOCATE AND MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL 4TH FLOOR 1. VINDHYACHAL BHAWAN BHOPAL 462004 (MADHYA PRADESH) ABHINAV INFRABUILD PVT. LTD. 207208 2. INDUSTRY HOUSE OLD PALASIYA AB ROAD INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS SHRI MANOJ MUNSHI, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT [CAVEAT]. WRIT PETITION No. 30654 of 2023 BETWEEN: GANNON DUNKERLEY AND CO. LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA SUDHIR DAS Signing time: 12022024 17:34:46 2 RAMESH MISHRA S/O SURENDRA PRASAD MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE 02, AMBER BUILDIGN, MG ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER SHRI VIVEK DALAL,ADVOCATE AND 1. MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL 4TH FLOOR, VINDHYACHAL BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. ABHINAV INFRABUILD PVT. LTD. 207208 INDUSTRY HOUSE OLD PALASIYA AB ROAD INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENT SHRI MANOJ MUNSHI, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT [CAVEAT]. This petition coming on for order this day, the court passed the following: ORDER 1. This order shall govern the disposal of both the writ petitions as both of them have arisen out of the two identical orders, both dated 7.7.2023, in two different case No. MSEFC/1697/2022 and No. MSEFC/1696/2022 arising between the same parties. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from W.P. No.30511/2023. Both these petitions have been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA SUDHIR DAS Signing time: 12022024 17:34:46 3 2. In brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 18(3) of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter to be referred to as "Act of 2006") was filed by the respondent no.2/applicant Abhinav Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd on the ground that it is a registered enterprise under the MS
1. Vasavi Communications, Rep. by its Sole Proprietrix, K.Narmadha 2. K.Rajeshwara Rao 3.KarthikaKarunakaran 4.K.Karunakaran ... Respondents PRAYER: Application has been filed under Section 55 of the Presidency Town Insolvency Act, 1908 read with Order II Rule 1 of Insolvency Rules to set aside the sale in favour of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 under the sale deed dated 18.08.2011 registered as Document No.1752 of 2011, SRO Thyagaraya Nagar and declare the said sale null and void. 1/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Appln. (I.P.) No.146 of 2015 in I.P.No.14 of 2012 For Petitioner : Mr.K.Harishankar For Respondents : Mr.C.P.G. Yoganand for R3 and R4 R1 and R2 Set Exparte ORDER The issue that arises for consideration in this application filed by the Official Assignee under Section 55 of the Presidency Town Insolvency Act, 1909 (Hereinafter referred to as "1909 Act") is whether the sale deed dated 18.08.2011 executed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Insolvents) in favour of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 (purchasers) has been executed in "good faith" and "for valuable sale consideration". 2. The debtor petition in I.P.No.14 of 2012 was filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 14.02.2012 to declare themselves as insolvents. They were adjudicated as insolvents by this Court on their petition vide order dated 16.02.2012 and thereafter, they had filed their statements on 12.06.2012. 2/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Appln. (I.P.) No.146 of 2015 in I.P.No.14 of 2012 3. According to the Official Assignee, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Insolvents) had disclosed in their statements to the Official Assignee that a residential property situated at No.4, Srinivas Apartments, Ground Floor, Sathulla Street, T.Nagar, Chennai (Hereinafter referred to as "Property") was sold by them in the year 2011 for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/ to the fourth respondent. 4. According to the Official Assignee, it was discovered, based on a valuation report, that the market value of the property as on 18.08.2011 was Rs.43,90,000/. However, according to the Official Assignee, in the sale
Madras High Court Easun Reyrollee Limited vs The Micro And Small Enterprises ... on 30 October, 2023 W.P. No. 10665 of 2018 DATED : 30.10.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU W.P. No. 10665 of 2018 and W.M.P. Nos. 12611 and 12612 of 2018 and 24720 of 2019 Easun Reyrollee Limited, Temple Tower, 6th Floor, No. 672, (Old No. 476), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600035. Represented by its Chief Financial Officer Mr. A.Kamatchinathan … Petitioner vs 1. The Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Odisha ('MSEFC') Office of the Director of Industries, Killa Maidan, Buxi Bazar – 753001 Cuttack, Odisha. 2. Gupta Power Infrastructure Limited, EN – 62, Sector V, 7th Floor, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700091. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the First Respondent in its proceedings in MSEFC Case No. 15/2014; and quash the impugned award dated 29.09.2016 passed in the above proceedings. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/7 W.P. No. 10665 of 2018 For Petitioner : Mr. T.K.Bhaskar For Respondents : Mr. U.Baranidharan, Additional Government Pleader (for R1) Mr. T.Sakthikumaran (for R2) ORDER Heard Mr. T.K.Bhaskar, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. U.Baranidharan, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the First Respondent and Mr. T.Sakthikumaran, Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2. The Second Respondent had made a claim in MSEFC Case No. 15/2014 before the First Respondent under Section 18(1) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MSMED Act' for short), claiming payment of Rs. 18,14,665.76 from the Petitioner towards remaining amount due for goods supplied with interest calculated in terms of that Act, in which an order dated 29.09.2016 was passed holding that the Petitioner was liable to pay the principal amount of Rs. 18,14,665.76 together with compounded interest with monthly rests at three times of the Bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India as stipulated in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/7 W.P. No. 10665 of 2018 Sections 15 and 16 of the MSMED Act, 2006 from the appointed due dates respectively till payment, which is challenged in this Writ Petition. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has filed a memo dated 30.10.2023, which reads as follows: “1. The Petitioner in the present Writ Petition was earlier represented by its Chief Financial Officer, Mr. A. Kamatchinathan. However, in the applications vide IBA/1045/2019 and IBA/1169/2019 filed under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), the Petitioner was ordered into corporate insolvency resolution proceedings by order of the Hon'ble
The Haryana State Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. V.K.Sachdeva, Mr. Vikram Vir Sharma, Mr. Amit Khanna & Mr. Pulkit Sachdeva, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Jhanjhi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Sharma & Mr. Shashank Sharma, Advocates for the respondents. * * * * * GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. 1. The petitioners assail order dated 30.8.2023 (Annexure P1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide which an application moved by the petitioners, seeking exemption from compliance of requirement of depositing 75% of the award amount in terms of Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'the MSMED Act, 2006'), has been declined. 2. Admittedly, respondent No. 3 M/s Servista Facility Solutions, having Sh. Gagan Gauri as its sole proprietor, had entered into a contract with respondent No. 4 M/s Pro Facilities Services Pvt. Ltd. on 15.4.2017, as per KAMAL KUMAR 2023.10.10 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR56822023 (O&M) (2) 2023:PHHC:131014 which respondent no. 3 was to provide security services to respondent no. 4. A dispute having arisen, respondent No. 3 sought recovery of outstanding amount of Rs. 1,14,35,652/ and an interest amount of Rs. 1,24,80,648/ from respondent No. 4 by invoking provisions of Section 16 and 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006. The Council constituted under the MSMED Act, 2006 issued notice to respondent No. 4 who did not file any response despite several opportunities having been afforded. The claimant informed the Council that as a matter of fact respondent No. 4 Company had appointed dummy Directors and was actually being run by Shri Sunil Nihal Dugal and Ms. Madhubala Dugal i.e. by petitioners No. 2 and 3 and their companies. The Council issued notices to the aforesaid Mr. Sunil Nihal Dugal and Ms. Madhubala Dugal and to their companies and upon securing their presence made efforts to get the matter amicably resolved but to no avail. The stand taken by the petitioners in the said proceedings was that they were not party to the agreement and had nothing to do with the said agreement entered into by the contracting company i.e. respondent no.4 company. 3. The conciliation proceedings having failed, the matter was referred to the empanelled Arbitrator, who issued notices to all the parties where only the claimant i.e. respondent no. 3 put in appearance but the others i.e. the petitioners did not appear. However, the petitioners sent a letter dated 4.3.2021 for deletion of their names from the array of parties. The petitioners (arrayed as respondents in said proceedings) were ultimately proceeded against exparte. The empanelled Arbitrator conducted the proceedings and submitted his recommendation/opinion to the Council pursuant to which award dated 25.6.2021 (Annexure P43) came to be passed by the Council in KAMAL KUMAR 2023.10.10 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR56822023 (O&M) (3)
RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT07/12/1993 AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) KULDIP SINGH (J) CITATION: 1994 AIR 1023 1994 SCC (1) 616 1993 SCALE (4)636 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: ORDER 1. Special leave granted. 2. This appeal is a sequel to an unfortunate occurrence dated January 25, 1993, wherein Kulwant Singh, Advocate, practising at the District Courts, Ropar, his wife and a child aged about two years were alleged to have been abducted and murdered. The lawyer fraternity in general and the advocates practising at the High Court and the District Courts in the States of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh were not satisfied with the police investigation. The Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association (Bar Association) demanded a judicial inquiry into the occurrence by a sitting Judge of the High Court or a District Judge or a Vigilance Judge belonging to the higher judiciary. Their demand, having not been acceded to by the State Government, the Bar Association went on indefinite strike with effect from February 6, 1993. Later on, the District Bar Associations in the States of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh also went on strike thereby stopping the functioning of the courts throughout the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. An action committee formed by the Bar Association held an inquiry into the matter and submitted its report on February 14, 1993. The report is reproduced hereunder: "REPORT OF THE KILLING OF MR KULWANT SINGH, ADVOCATE, HIS WIFE AND TWO YEAR OLD SON Bar Association of Punjab and Haryana High Court formed an 'Action Committee' for the release of Mr Kulwant Singh, Advocate, his wife and two year old son, who were alleged to have been abducted/detained by the Ropar Police on January 25, 1993. The brief facts regarding detention/abduction of Mr Kulwant Singh, Advocate and his family and child are Mr Kulwant Singh was trying for the release of one Mrs Manjit Kaur and her minor son who were being illegally detained by Ropar Police. Manjit Kaur belonged to the village Budha Bora and Mr Kulwant Singh also belonged to the same village. The Panchayat of said village had requested Mr Kulwant Singh, Advocate to get Manjit and her son released from illegal custody of the police. On January 25, 1993 at about 9.25 p.m. Mr Kulwant Singh rang up the police station to check up whether Manjit Kaur and her minor son had been released or not. He was told that two had been released and he could come and take them as the police wanted to hand them over to some responsible person. As a lady was to be brought, Mr Kulwant Singh told his wife to accompany him to the police station. There was no one to look after the child as Mr Jagir Singh, Kulwant Singh's father was 618 the only one left behind in the house and as such the child was also taken along with by Mr Kulwant Singh to the police station. Mr Kulwant Singh and his family left for the police station, Ropar at about 9.30 p.m. in their Maruti car and have not been heard of
Delhi High Court Orders Solarworld Energy Solutions Limited vs Sjvn Green Energy Ltd. & Anr on 6 February, 2026 $~27 & 28 * + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 34/2026 SOLARWORLD ENERGY SOLUTIONS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajshekar Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ayush Aggarwala, Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Mr. Aman Bajaj, Mr. Purushartha Singh, Mr. Akshat Tiwari and Mr. Wamic Wasim Nargal, Advs. M: 9289037441 Email: [email protected] versus SJVN GREEN ENERGY LTD. & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anushree Bardhan, Ms. Ritika Singh, Ms. Somya Sahni and Ms. Rashmi Vaish, Advs. for R1 Mob: 8076638384 Email: anushreebardhanandassociates@gmai l.com Ms. Shimpy Arman Sharma, Ms. Shelly Khanna & Ms. Shivangi Goel, Advs. for R2/HDFC Bank Limited (Through VC) 28 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 35/2026 SOLARWORLD ENERGY SOLUTIONS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajshekar Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ayush Aggarwala, Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Mr. Aman Bajaj, Mr. Page 1 of 12 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 09/02/2026 at 20:43:15 Purushartha Singh, Mr. Akshat Tiwari and Mr. Wamic Wasim Nargal, Advs. M: 9289037441 Email: [email protected] versus SJVN GREEN ENERGY LTD. & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anushree Bardhan, Ms. Ritika Singh, Ms. Somya Sahni and Ms. Rashmi Vaish, Advs. for R1 Mob: 8076638384 Email: