abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
5. Ashish Puri s/o Late Sh. Inder Mohan Puri R/o J112, Main Market, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi110027. 6. Subodh Kumar Singh s/o Late Sh. S. P. Singh R/o 2314/4, Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp, Delhi110009 7. Sharad Joshi s/o Late Sh. B. P. Joshi, R/o B43, Kamal Pushpa Society, Bandra Reclamation, Bandra West, Mumbai400050 8. Surendra Kumar Grover Late Sh. R. L. Grover R/o EA25, Inderpuri, New Delhi110012. Date of Institution : 05.01.2016 Judgment reserved on : 05.08.2020 Date of Judgment : 29.08.2020 Memo of Appearance: Sh. A. K. Kushwaha, Ld. PP for CBI. Sh. M. S. Bammi, Ld. Counsel for Accused No.5. Sh. L. K. Singh, Ld. Counsel for Accused No.6. Sh. Siddharth Joshi, Ld. Counsel for Accused No.7. Sh. Ashok Kumar and Sh. Anil Mishra, Ld. Counsels for Accused No.8. JUDGMENT PROSECUTION VERSION 1. The FIR in the present case was registered on 24.07.2014 on the basis of written complaint made by Sh. Bharat Bhushan Gupta, CC No. 3/2019 CBI Vs. Surender Singh & Ors. Page No. 2 of 178 Assistant General Manager, Union Bank of India, Patel Nagar Branch, New Delhi (herein after referred to in short "Complainant Bank") for offences under Section 120B IPC read with Section 420 and 467 IPC against Surender Singh(A1) Prop. of M/s National Traders, R/o J 5/152, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and unknown officials of complainant Bank. M/s National Traders a proprietorship firm was engaged in the business of auto part and accessories of commercial vehicles. In December, 2010 the account of this firm was taken over by complainant bank from Bank of Baroda, Najafgarh Branch (herein after referred to in short "BOB") by sanctioning Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 4 crores, Packing Credit Limit of Rs. 0.85 crores and FDBP limit of Rs. 1 crore. In order to secure the loan sanctioned by the complainant bank, the firm mortgaged entire immovable property situated at J7/53, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi (owned by A1) by depositing the original title deeds of the property on 28.01.2011. On 31.12.2012 account was declared NPA and complainant bank initiated recovery action by invoking
Raj Kumar Sahani & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Mr. Palak Kalra, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Ms. Namrata Saraogi, Mr. Rajeev Chowdhary, Ms. Priyanka Bhatt, Advocates for R1. Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Mr. Gaurav Rana, Mr. Ajitesh Kumar and Mr. Shresth Garg, Advocates for R2. Mr. Gurjot Singh, Advocate for R3. With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.256 & 257 of 2024 (Arising out of Order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench, CourtIV in I.A. No.4173/2023 and I.A. No.5458/2022 in CP (IB) No.983/ND/2020) IN THE MATTER OF: Bishwanath Traders & Investment Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Ashish Singh, Resolution Professional of Vibrant Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gurjot Singh, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Ms. Namrata Saraogi, Mr. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) Nos. 253254, 256257 & 442443 of 2024 1 Rajeev Chowdhary, Ms. Priyanka Bhatt, Advocates for R2. Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Mr. Palak Kalra, Advocates for RP. Mr. Ashutosh Gupta and Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocates for R3. With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 442 & 443 of 2024 & I.A. No.2763, 2764 of 2024 (Arising out of Order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi Bench, CourtIV in I.A. No.4173/2023 and I.A. No.5458/2022 in CP (IB) No.983/ND/2020) IN THE MATTER OF: Committee of Creditors of Vibrant Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Raj Kumar Sahani & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Mr. Gaurav Rana, Mr. Ajitesh Kumar and Mr. Shresth Garg, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Ms. Namrata Saraogi, Mr. Rajeev Chowdhary, Ms. Priyanka Bhatt, Advocates for R1. Mr. Gurjot Singh, Advocate for R3. Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Mr. Palak Kalra, Advocates for RP. Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rajshree Chaudhary and Ms. Diksha Dadu, Advocates for Interveners in I.A. No.2763/2024. JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. These Appeal(s) by Resolution Professional ("RP") of M/s Vibrant Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.; the Committee of Creditors ("CoC") of Vibrant Buildwell Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) Nos. 253254, 256257 & 442443 of 2024 2 Pvt. Ltd. and Successful Resolution Applicant ("SRA") of the Corporate Debtor ("CD")has been filed against the same order dated 24.01.2024 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, CourtIV in I.A. No.4173 of 2023 filed by Raj Kumar Sahani, Suspended Director and Shareholder of the CD and IA No.5458 of 2022 filed by RP for approval of Resolution Plan. The Adjudicating Authority by the impugned order allowed IA No.4173 of 2023 accepting the objection rai
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax9(1)(2) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... 1 तवाद /Respondent आअसं. 1212/म/ुं 2016 ( न. व. 201112) ITA NO.1212/MUM/2016 (A.Y.201112) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax14(1)(1), Room No.460, 4th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ0 /Appellant Vs. Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Godrej & Boyce Complex, Plat No 5, Pirojshanagar, LBS Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai 400 079 PAN: AAACO 2461J ..... 1 तवाद /Respondent Assessee by : Shri Dhanesh Bafna with Shri Arpit Agarwal Revenue by : Shri Anand Mohan 2 ITA NO.7592/MUM/2014 (A.Y.201011) ITA NO.865/MUM/2016 (A.Y.201112) ITA NO.1212/MUM/2016 (A.Y.201112) सन ु वाई क3 त थ/ Date of hearing : 15/02/2021 घोषणा क3 त थ/ Date of pronouncement : 06 /05/2021 आदे श/ ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: In ITA No.7592/Mum/2014, the assessee has assailed assessment order dated 13/11/2014 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for assessment year 201011. ITA No.865/Mum/2016 by the assessee is directed against the assessment order dated 01/01/2016 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act for the assessment year 201112. The Revenue has filed cross appeal in ITA No.1212/Mum/2016 assailing the assessment order for assessment year 201112. Since, the issues involved in these appeals are identical, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. ITA No.7592/Mum/2014 A.Y.201011: 2. In ground No.1 of appeal, the assessee has assailed Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment in relation to provision of software development services. The assessee is engaged in the business of development and maintenance of computer software, development, sale and export of software services and provision of technical consultancy. The assessee is wholly owned subsidiary of Atos Origin BV, Netherlands. During the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee entered into various international transactions including provision of software development services. Since, the dispute before us relates to software development services segment, we would confine our focus on international transaction with respect to software development services only. The assessee provides software development services to Atos Origin Group. The operating margin of the assessee from provision of software development services is 12.19%. To benchmark Arm's Length Price (ALP) 3 ITA NO.7592/MUM/2014 (A.Y.201011) ITA NO.865/MUM/2016 (A.Y.201112) ITA NO.1212/MUM/2016 (A.Y.201112) of the transactions with Associated Enterprise (AE), the assessee selected sixteen companies as comparables and arrived at an arithmetic mean of 12.28%. The assessee applied Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as most appropriate method to benchmark the transactions. The Transfer Pricing Officer(TPO) rejected eight comparables selected by the assessee and introduced five new comparables. Thus, the final set of 13 comparable as per TPO are as under: S. No. Name of Comparable Margins % OP/TC 1. Akshay Software Technologies Ltd.
Andhra Pradesh High Court Amravati S Kalyana Chakravarthy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 January, 2025 1 *HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI +WRIT PETITION NO: 9996, 11089 & 11476/2021 and 29140/2023 +WP No.9996/2021 Between: #G. Kiranmai and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND $The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 24.01.2025 THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes 3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes ___________________________________ DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO 2 * THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9996, 11089 & 11476/2021 and 29140/2023 % 24.01.2025 +WP No.9996/2021 # Between: #G. Kiranmai and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND $The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ghanta Rama Rao Sri Ghanta Sridhar Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy Sri K. Raghuveer ! Counsel for Respondents: Advocate General Sri M. Vijay Kumar Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy Sri Venkata Rao Ms. Jyothirathna Anumolu Sri Surendra Rao Sri Srnivasa Rao Madiraju Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri Sri C. Srinivasa Baba 3 <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. MANU/SC/0776/1999 2. MANU/SC/0644/1987 3. MANU/SC/8149/2006 4. AIR 1968 SC 850 5. (1998) 2 SCC 523 6. (1982) 2 SSC 116 7. (2022)1 SCC 352 8. 1985 (Supp) SCC 218 9. 1975 (2) SCC 553 10. 1981 4 SCC 130 11. 1982 (2) SCC 116 12. 1985 (Supp) SCC 218 13. 1987 (4) SCC 566 14. 1998 (2) SCC 523 15. 2000(1) SCC 644 16 2006 (8) SCC 129 17 (1991) 2 SCC 295 18 (1967) SLR 753 19 AIR 1962 SC 1044 20 (2022) 1 SCC 352 4 APHC010181552021 AT AMARAVATI [3310] ((Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9996 9996, 11089 & 11476/2021 and 29140/2023 WP No.996 of 2021 Between: G. Kiranmai and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 5 1. GHANTA SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Y.NAGI REDDY (APSPDCL) 2. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL 3. GP FOR ENERGY (AP) 4. V R REDDY KOVVURI 5. V V SATISH The Court made the following: COMMONORDER : As the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same, and therefore, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order. 2. The WP Nos.9996, 11089 of 2021 are filed challenging the Memo of the 2nd respondent in Memo No. APCPDCL/CMD/DIR(TECH)/ GM(HR)/DGM/ PO(Adm)/ Asst./D.No.992/21, dated 17.03.2021 unsettling petitioners' settled seniority basing upon the seniority in the Cadre of Assistant Engineer instead of taking into consideration of the Seniority in the cadre of the Deputy Executive Engineer as the same is arbitrary and illegal.
S327, Lower Ground Floor, Special Range8, Greater KailashII, New Delhi. New Delhi. 110 048. PAN: AAACS3406M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate, Ms Mansha Bhalla, CA & Shri Ramit Katyal, CA Revenue by : Shri Dharmvir Singh, CITDR Date of Hearing : 07.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 07.05.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 28.02.2018 of the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals)44, New Delhi ITA No.3688/Del/2018 CO No.144/Del/2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ld.CIT(A) or the ld. FAA) in Appeal No.139/201718/CIT(A)44 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 28.03.2014 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the DCIT, Circle9(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). The assessee has filed Cross Objection being CO No.144/Del/2018. 2. Heard and perused the records. The written submissions filed from both the sides are duly taken into consideration. The primary facts asserted by the Assessee are that it is a captive service provider and undertakes Integrated Circuits ("ICs") design implementation, maintenance and verification services for ST Group entities ("AEs") based on the guidelines/ instructions provided by the AEs. Thus, the role of the assessee is akin to that of a risk mitigated captive design and development service provider and it is remunerated on a cost plus revenue model. The operating profit margin of the assessee submitted in the Transfer Pricing Documentation for the purpose of benchmarking was 10.40% (Considering FOREX as operating) and for benchmarking the international transaction of provision of I/C design implementation and maintenance services, the assessee considered the following 20 comparable companies with working capital adjusted arithmetic mean of 7.82% and risk adjusted operating profit margin (OP/OC) of 2.12%: 2 ITA No.3688/Del/2018 CO No.144/Del/2018 Weighted average risk S. No. Company Name adjusted OP/TC (%) 1. Akshay Software Technologies Limited 7.85% 2. Ancent Software International Ltd 10.59% 3. Aztecsoft Limited 4.15% CG VAK Software and Exports 1.88% 4. Limited (Segmental) 5. Goldstone Technologies Limited 9.91% Helios & Matheson Information 11.26% 6. Technology Limited 7. Indium Software (India) Limited 6.19% 8. KPIT Cummins Infosystems Limited 10.16% 9. Larsen and Toubro Infotech Limited 16.62% 10. LGS Global Limited 20.01% 11. Mindtree Limited 9.90% 12. Persistent Systems Limited 21.65% 13. Quintegra Solutions Limited 1.14% 14. R S Software (India) Limited 8.99% Sasken Communication Technologies 16.32% 15. Limited 16.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Director vs Micro & Small on 5 January, 2022 REPORTABLE . ON THE 5th DAY OF JANUARY, 2022 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA CWP 2041/2017 Between: SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SIMPLEX HOUSE, 27 SHAKESPEARE SARANI, KOLKATA­700017 THROUGH MR. R.K. BAGRI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. ...PETITIONER (BY MR. SUBHASH SHARMA ADVOCATE) AND 1. HIMACHAL PRADESH MICRO AND SMALL FACILITATION COUNCIL, SERVICE THROUGH THE ::: Downloaded on 31/01/2022 23:33:46 :::CIS 2 CHAIRMAN, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES­CUM ­CHAIRMAN, UDYOG BHAWAN, . SHIMLA 171 001. 2. G­TECH SPLICING PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 411, OSIAN BUILDING, 12 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI­110019 AND ALSO HAVING AN OFFICE AT A­39, VILLAGE NARYAL, SECTOR­4 PARWANOO, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR. 3. RANJAN SHAH SURI, DIRECTOR AND SHARE HOLDER OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND WORKING FOR GAIN AT 411, OSIAN BUILDING, 12 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI­110019. ...RESPONDENTS (MR. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR. NAND LAL THAKUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1. MS VEENA SHARMA AND MR. ABHISHEK SHARMA, ADVOCATES, FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 2 AND 3) ::: Downloaded on 31/01/2022 23:33:46 :::CIS 3 CWP 1239/2018 Between: SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES . LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SIMPLEX HOUSE, 27 SHAKESPEARE SARANI, KOLKATA­700017 THROUGH MR. K.L. VAID, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. ...PETITIONER (BY MR. SUBHASH SHARMA ADVOCATE) AND 1. HIMACHAL PRADESH MICRO AND SMALL FACILITATION COUNCIL, SERVICE THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES­CUM ­CHAIRMAN, UDYOG BHAWAN, SHIMLA 171 001. 2. G­TECH SPLICING PRIVATE LIMITED, A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF MR. GAURAV MALHOTRA HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 411, OSIAN BUILDING, 12 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI­110019 AND ALSO HAVING AN OFFICE AT A­39, VILLAGE NARYAL, SECTOR­4 PARWANOO, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR. ::: Downloaded on 31/01/2022 23:33:46 :::CIS 4 3. MR. GAURAV MALHOTRA PROPRIETOR OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND WORKING FOR . GAIN AT 411, OSIAN BUILDING, 12 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI­110019. ...RESPONDENTS (MR. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR. NAND LAL THAKUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1. MS VEENA SHARMA AND MR. ABHISHEK SHARMA, ADVOCATES, FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 2 AND 3) These day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq, passed the following: ORDER These two writ petitions involve common questions of facts and law, therefore, they were heard together and ar
1. The Divisional Commissioner, ] Konkan Division, Having its office at ] Konkan Bhavan, CBD Belapur, ] Navi Mumbai. ] ] 2. Shri. Yogesh Prakash Chandoskar, ] At Post Jamsande, Velvadi Sada, ] Tal. Devgad, District Sindhudurg. ] ] 3. The Collector, Sindhudurg, ] District Sindhudurg. ] ] 4. Regional Director Municipal ] Administration, Having its office at ] Konkan Bhavan, CBD Belapur, ] Navi Mumbai. ] ] 5. Devgad Jamsande Nagarpanchayat, ] At post Devgad, District Sindhudurg, ] Pin Code 416 613 ] Through it Chief Officer. ] ...Respondents. Mr. Suresh Sabrad for the Petitioner. Ms. Pushpa Ganediwala and Ms. Anshu Agrawal for the Respondent No. 2. Mr. Ulhas T. Naik for the Respondent No. 5. Ms. M. P. thakur, AGP for the RespondentState. PatilSR (ch) 1 of 25 WP 1247923.doc Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Reserved on : July 29, 2024 Pronounced on : August 14, 2024. Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of learned counsel for parties taken up for final disposal. 2. By this petition, exception is taken to the order dated 5th October 2023 passed by Respondent No.1 Divisional Commissioner in Appeal No. 1 of 2023 confirming the order dated 17 th July 2023 passed by Respondent No. 3 Collector, Sindhudurg disqualifying the Petitioner under Section 44(1)(e)of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short "Municipal Councils Act"). FACTS: 3. The background leading to the present Petition as discerned from the Petition is that in the year 2020, the Petitioner was elected as Councillor from Ward No.7 of Respondent No.5 Devgadh Jamsande Nagar Panchayat. On 7th November 2022, the Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint with the Collector contending that the Petitioner has violated the provisions of Municipal Councils Act by carrying out illegal construction and sought disqualification of the Petitioner. Pursuant thereto, site inspection was carried out by the officers of Respondent PatilSR (ch) 2 of 25 WP 1247923.doc No.5 and the report along with panchnama dated 14 th November 2022 was forwarded by the Chief Officer of Respondent No.5 to Town Planning Department. On 21st November 2022, the Town Planning Department sought information from the Chief Officer as to whether the construction was carried out during the tenure of Petitioner as Councillor and directed report to be submitted. On 22 nd November 2022, Chief Officer of Respondent No. 5 submitted its report stating that the Petitioner and his brother had preferred an application for building permission on 30th June 2022 and during the pendency of same, they have carried out unauthorised construction during the tenure of Petitioner as Councillor. 4. O
Delhi High Court Chet Ram Sharma (Deceased) Through Lr ... vs Union Of India And Anr on 6 November, 2024 $~ * % Reserved on: 04 October, 2024 Decided on: 06 November, 2024 + LA.APP. 78/2022 & CM APPL. 17739/2022 CHET RAM & OTHERS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ruchira V Arora and Mr. Dhananjay, Advocates V UNION OF INDIA& ANOTHER .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M. S. Akhtar, Mr. Mayank Aroraand Mr. Sami Sameer Sidhique, Advocates for Respondent no 1/UOI Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocate for Respondent no 2/DDA CORAM HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal is filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to challenge the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2022 passed in LAC Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 1 11:40:52 bearing no. 3/17 titled as Chet Ram & others V Union of India & another (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment") passed by the court of Ms. Shelly Arora, ADJ01, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the reference court") whereby the reference court enhanced the compensation amount awarded by the LAC i.e. at the rate of Rs. 2,244.166/ per sq. meter (Rs. 2,684/ per sq. yards) to Rs. 7,392/ per sq. meter (Rs. 8,840.76/ per sq. yards) of the appellant‟s land bearing Khasra no. 621/2/3/2/2/1 measuring 02 Bighas 16 Biswas (2816 sq. yards) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Bahapur forming part of Nehru Place District Centre, Delhi was assessed at a rate of Rs. 30,124.21 per sq. meter along with other benefits. 2. The factual background of the case is that LAC pronounced Award bearing no 24/DC(S)200506 under section 11 of the Act in pursuance of notifications bearing no F.9(32)/01/L&B/LA/14637 dated 28.11.2002 issued under sections 4 & 17 of the Act and bearing no F.9(32)/01/L&B/LA/4941 dated 13.06.2003 issued under section 6 of the Act for acquisition of land falling in Khasra no 621/2/3/2/2/1 measuring 2 bighas and 16 biswas and Khasra no 621/2/3/2/2/2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:07.11.2024 LA.APP 78/2022 Page 2 11:40:52 measuring 6 bighas and 10 biswas total measuring 08 bighas and 6 biswas situated in Village Bahapur for Planned Development of Delhi. LAC has determined market value of land at rate of Rs. 2,684/ per square yard along with statutory benefits. LAC as per Award observed that market value of the land has to be determined with reference to the price prevailing on date of preliminary notification and the market value means the price that would be paid by willing purchaser to a