abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
M/s Kolash Corporation ...Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners:r Mr. Abhishek Dulta, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. . Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioners have assailed the award dated 30.08.2023, passed by the learned Arbitrator in a reference from the Himachal Pradesh Micro, Small & Medium Enterprise Facilitation Council constituted under Section 20 Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act in short). 2. In terms of the aforesaid award, the claim of the respondent was allowed as under: 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes ::: Downloaded on 09/08/2024 20:36:26 :::CIS 2 2024:HHC:6721 "8.6 The claim of the petitioner is admitted and an award for a sum of Rs. 1,23,51,664/ (Principal +interest only) / (Principal +Interest) as reference No 14/2023(48043) . dated 07.06.2023 is passed against the buyer and in favour of claimant to be paid with in 30 days from the date of this award. The respondent shall also be liable to pay to the petitioner interest from the date of filing the present reference up to the date of passing the award and future interest from the date of passing the award till the payment is made as per interest rate fixed under section 16 of the MSMED Act 2006. The petitioner is further entitled to get reimbursed arbitrator's fees of Rs 50,000/ and litigation expenses and other miscellaneous expenses such as counsels fee, postal & stationary charges, clerical expenses, travelling expenses etc. to the extent of Rs15,000/, against the respondent which will form part of this award. The award is duly prepared, printed and signed in three originals and one original copy of the award has been delivered to each of the party and third original copy of the award on stamp papers has been deposited in the office of the Chairman H.P. Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council CumDirector of Industries, H.P., Udyog Bhawan, Shimla for record & to be produced if required before the Appellate/Executing Court. The reference is answered accordingly and award announced." 3. The petitioners have instituted this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 19 of the MSMED Act, against the aforesaid ::: Downloaded on 09/08/2024 20:36:26 :::CIS 3 2024:HHC:6721 award. 4. Following order was passed in the matter on 27.12.2023: . "Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to deposit 75% of the entire awarded amount alongwith uptodate interest passed by the learned Arbitrator, vide award dated 30.08.2023 within a period of six weeks, in terms of Section 19 of the
State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ... Mr.Mihir Desai i/b Mr.Chetan Mali, Advocate for the applicant in Criminal Bail Application No.1020 of 2012. Ms.Rohini Salian, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr.S.R.Shinde, APP for the State. WITH CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1066 of 2012 Ms.Sushma Hemant Ramtekke ... Applicant versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ... Mr.Sudeep Pasbola with Ms.Susan Abraham, Mr.Ram Pawade and Rahul Arote i/b Mrs.Sharmila Kaushik for the applicant. Ms.Rohini Salian, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr.S.R.Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : October 3, 2012 ::: Downloaded on 09/06/2013 19:12:38 ::: 2/26 BA 1020 AND 106612 ORAL ORDER: 1 These two applications can be conveniently disposed of by a common order, as the applicants are the accused in one and the same case. i.e. Sessions Case No.655 of 2011 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, at Sewree, Mumbai. 2 The applicant Jyoti Chorge (in Bail Application No.1020 of 2012) is the Accused No.4, while the applicant Sushma (in Bail Application No.1066 of 2012) is the Accused No.2 in the said case. The case is in respect of offences punishable under sections 387 IPC, 419 IPC, 465 IPC, 467 IPC, 468 IPC, 471 IPC read with section 120B of the IPC, and also in respect of offences punishable under section 10, 13, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 21, 38, 39, 40(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, as amended upto 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'UAP Act' for the sake of brevity). There are totally seven accused who have been arrested in the said case and eight more are said to be absconding and wanted. 3 The applicants are alleged to be the members of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) which is a Terrorist Organization. ::: Downloaded on 09/06/2013 19:12:38 ::: 3/26 BA 1020 AND 106612 The Central Government has declared it to be so by a notification issued on 22 June 2009 whereby the said Organization was enlisted in the schedule appended to the said Act. The prosecution case is that on 25 April 2011, on certain information, the Anti Terrorism Squad, which is the Investigating Agency in the present case, arrested one Angela Sontakke @ Angela Teltumbde (Accused No.1 in this case). Certain incriminating articles which are said to be provocative publicity material etc. were found with her. When she was interrogated, she led the police to her house i.e. a room where she was residing with the Accused No.2 Sushma (Applicant in BA No.1066/12). The Accused No.2 was present in the said room. The said room was searched and some laptops, mobile handsets, some audio and video cassettes which are said to be the publicity
Sanjay Prashar S/o Sh.Girdhari Lal, resident of H.No.364/8, Gali Sattowali, Bazar Sattowala, Katra Karam Singh, Amritsar, District Amritsar, email id: [email protected]. Second Address: Aryan Arora, H.No.1075, Sector 40, Chandigarh. ........Respondent/Complainant 2 RP No.75 of 2024 Revision Petition filed under Section 47 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana. Quorum: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member Present: For the petitioners : Ms.Svetlana, Advocate for Sh.Sandeep Verma, Advocate For the respondent : Sh.Raju Arora, Advocate SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners/OPs to challenge the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (in short the "District Commission"), whereby the District Commission had dismissed the Application of the Petitioners/OPs for amendment in the written statement. 2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Petitioners in the Revision Petition are that the OPs had filed the Application before the District Commission under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment in the written statement the same was dismissed on the ground that the said Application had been filed at a belated stage of final arguments. The Petitioners had not mentioned 3 RP No.75 of 2024 in the Application as to which para of the written statement they wanted to amend. Further the District Commission had observed that the said Application was filed for delaying the matter and the same was dismissed. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the District Commission, the Petitioners/OPs have filed the present Revision Petition for setting aside the said order. The relevant part of the order is reproduced as under: "Bare perusal of the application for amendment of written statement shows that the OPs have intention to amend their written version by alleging that purchase of the plot in question by the complainant for the purpose of investment. However, the Ops have firstly not specified which paragraph of the entire written version is required to be amended by the OPs and as such, application for amendment of written statement on the face of it is vague and ambiguous. Written statement of the OPs is also based upon the admission of material facts and Ops have not controverted/rebut the competency of the complainant to file the present complaint. In fact, the Ops have of late starte
Delhi High Court Kanti Bijlee Utpadan Nigam Ltd vs Paltech Cooling Towers &Equipments ... on 5 July, 2022 % Judgment delivered on: 05.07.2022 + O.M.P. (COMM.) 154/2021 and IA Nos. 5562/2021, 5563/2021 & 5565/2021 KANTI BIJLEE UTPADAN NIGAM LTD ..... Petitioner versus PALTECH COOLING TOWERS & EQUIPMENTS LTD ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Puneet Taneja with Ms Laxmi Kumar and Mr Manmohan Singh Narula, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr Ramesh Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms Sakshi Mehley and Ms Harshita Kumar, Advocates. CORAM HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J 1. Kanti Bijlee Utpadan Nigam Ltd (hereafter 'KBUNL') has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the 'A&C Act') impugning an arbitral award dated 30.12.2020 (hereafter the 'impugned award') delivered by an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator (hereafter the 'Arbitral Tribunal'). Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal O.M.P. (COMM.) 154/2021 Page 1 of 27 Signing Date:05.07.2022 2. KBUNL was earlier a Joint Venture of NTPC Ltd. and Bihar Electricity Board and is currently, a 100% wholly owned subsidiary of NTPC Ltd. KBUNL was incorporated for the operation and maintenance of Units no.1 and 2 as well as installation of Units no. 3 and 4 of the Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Station located at Kanti, Distt., Muzaffarpur, Bihar. 3. Paltech Cooling Towers & Equipments Ltd (hereafter 'PCTEL') is, interalia, engaged in the business of manufacturing of cooling and chilling plants and has been registered as a small scale industry under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Act, 2006 (hereafter the 'MSME Act'). 4. On 26.06.2010, KBUNL had invited sealed bids being IFD No. CS03501352 for "induced draft cooling tower package for Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Project StageII". 5. PCTEL submitted its bid and was declared successful. Thereafter, the contract was awarded to PCTEL through two separate Notifications of Award dated 09.08.2011 bearing (i) Ref No. CS035013522FC NOA24 for ExWorks supply valued at ₹13,52,30,000/ (hereafter the 'Supply Contract') and; (ii) Ref No. CS035013522FCNOA25 for providing all services to be supplied by PCTEL for complete induced draft cooling tower package for Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Project, StageII, valued at ₹ 31,90,06,000/ (hereafter 'the Service Contract'). 6. The Supply Contract and the Service Contract (collectively referred to as 'Contracts') were entered into between the parties on Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal O.M.P. (COMM.) 154/2021 Page 2 of 27 Signing Date:05.07.2022 10.09.2011. The work under the Contracts commenced from the date of Notification of Award, that is, 09.08.2011 and was to be completed within a period of 24 (twentyfour) months, that is, by 08.08.2013. 7. In terms of the Contracts entered into between the parties, KBUNL was required to retain 10% of the Contract Price until the Performance Gua
PLAINT 2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff is a registered partnership firm under Company Act and deals in various types of garments since many years and defendant approached the plaintiff in the year of 2023 at his registered office at Gandhi Nagar, Delhi110031 and according to the demands plaintiff supplied goods to defendant and issued original bills. It is stated that in the financial year of 202324, i.e. 01 April, 2023 to 31 March,2024, plaintiff supplied goods for a sum of Rs.6,72,735/ on different dates vide invoice no. 884 and 888 dated 14.05.23, invoice no.2377, 2381 and 2382 dated 01.10.23, invoice no.2408 dated 03.01.2024. 2.1 It is submitted that during the financial year of 01.03.2022 to 27.04.2024, defendant made the payment for a sum of Rs.2,96,714/ and the outstanding against defendant is Rs.3,76,021/. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 09.05.2024 was served upon the defendant. Plaintiff also filed an Pre Institution Mediation before the DLSA, Karkardooma Court, Delhi as per the Commercial Courts, 2015 and the Non Starter was issued on 19.07.2024. It is submitted that the present matter is more than Rs.3,00,000/ and it is stated that during the process of Pre Institution Mediation, defendant had transferred Rs.30,000/ in account of plaintiff in 5 installments. 2.2 It is submitted that after making the last payment for a sum of Rs.5,000/ on 16.07.2024, defendant stopped making further payment and clear
The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai – II (Import), Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to release the goods imported vide Bill of Entry No.9185414 dated 29.03.2025 (later refiled as B/E No.2483649 dated 05.06.2025 after the earlier B/E got purged) and Bill of Entry No.9216489 dated 31.03.2025 in terms of the learned CESTAT’s Miscellaneous Order No.41108/2025 dated 22.12.2025 so as to enable the Petitioner to sell the goods before the statutory deadline of 31.12.2025 stipulated in the Medical Textiles (Quality Control) Order, 2024. Page 1 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/12/2025 10:15:01 pm ) W.P.No.50475 of 2025 For Petitioner :Mr.Raghavan Ramabadran Assisted by Mr.Santhana Gopalan D & Mr.S.Ganesh Aravindh For Respondent :Mr.K.Guruprasad for Mr.Su.Srinivasan, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel ORDER Heard Mr.Raghavan Ramabadran for the petitioner and Mr.K.Guruprasad for Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent. Facts leading to the writ petition 2. The petitioner is an importer of feminine Hygiene products like Sanitary Napkins, Panty liners etc. The petitioner imports these products from suppliers in China. The suppliers manufacture these products using a technology which is unavailable in India. The petitioner is selling the products under the brand name “Plush”. The Chinese manufacturer has filed an application with the Bureau of Indian Standards (herein after referred to as ‘BIS’) under the Foreign Manufacturer Certification Scheme. The products manufactured by it fell under BIS scheduleA and have to answer the description BIS standard IS 5045:2019. Page 2 of 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/12/2025 10:15:01 pm ) W.P.No.50475 of 2025 3. The petitioner imported the products, for which it seeks release of, on 29.03.2025 and 31.03.2025. The Bill of Entries for these imports were filed on the aforesaid dates. 4. An alert notice No.2 of 2025 dated 27.02.2025 was issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, the Custom House, Mundra. This notice stated a clarification had been sought from the Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (hereinafter referred to as ‘DPIIT’) regarding the applicability o
Mumbai400 038. 1st Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowlwdge City, Navi Mumbai400 710. PAN:AACCR 4472 J (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ / Respondent) Revenue by: S/Shri Parag Vyas DR Assessee by: S/Shri J.D. Mistry/Deepak Jain सुनवाई क तारीख / Date of Hearing: 10/01/2018 घोषणा क तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 02/02/2018 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 क धारा 254(1)के अ तगत आदे श Order u/s.254(1)of the Incometax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद य राजे के अनुसार/ PER RAJENDRA, AM Challenging the orders of the CIT(A)XXXI,Mumbai,of various dates,the Assessing Officers (AO.s)have filed above mentioned appeals.Issue involved in all the appeals is identicalrelief granted by the First Appellate Authority(FAA)to the assessees for the alleged violation of the provisions of section 40(a)(i)of the Act.The AO.s were of the opinion that there was failure 1 on part of the assessees of not deducting tax at source for the payments made by them to the nonresidententities.Considering the commonness of the issue,we are adjudicating these appeals together. Assesseecompany are part of Reliance(ADAG)Group.The group consists many an entities, including Reliance Communication Ltd.(RCL),Reliance Telecom Ltd.,Reliance BPO Ltd.and Reliance Communication Infrastructure Ltd.RCL. is engaged in business of telecommuni cation.Other three entities were also connected with wireless telecommunication network in India.For that purpose,they entered into various contracts with nonresidententities and made certain payments for purchase of software.The assessees made applications u/s.195 of the Act, requesting the AO.s to allow them to make payments to non residents without deducting tax at source.However,the AO.s held that payments made by them to the non residents were taxable in India,that they should deduct tax at source before making such payments. Accordingly,the assessees deducted the taxes. 2.Aggrieved by the orders of the AO.s,passed u/s.195(2)of the Ac,the assessees preferred appeals before the First Appellate Authority(FAA)and made elaborate submissions.Consider ing various clauses of the Contracts entered in to by the assessee with the suppliers,he held that the assessees did not own any rights for transferring the software licenses,that they were not having the power to decode the machine code of the software nor did they had the power to make copies of software(except for backup),that they had obtained only the right to use the software for their business purpose and obtained no other rights in the Software,that the assessee had acquired the hardware and software simultaneously,that they did not acquire any right of duplication of software except for its own use.He also deliberated upon the provisions of the Indian Copyright Act,1957(ICA) and held that payment made by them for acquiring copy of the software did not amount to royalty within the definition under Article 12(3)of the DTAA.s.He referred to various clauses of the agreements entered into between the assessees and the vendors.Finally,he allowed the appeals filed by th
1. The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram 2. The Block Development Officer, Vallam Panchayat Union, Vallam, Villupuram District. 3. The Panchayat Secretary, Irumbuli Panchayat, Irumbuli Village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District ...Respondents Prayer: This petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the second respondent in 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Na.Ka.Aa6/3874/2022, dated 11.01.2023 and to quash the same and consequently direct the second respondents to settle the balance pending amount of Rs.39,961/ as per the sanction Order in No.Na.Ka.No.A6/15/2014, dated 09.05.2018 and pass orders. For Petitioner : Mr.K. Sakthidoss For Respondent : Mr. A.M. Ayyadurai Government Advocate ORDER This petition is filed to seeking to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.Aa6/3874/2022, dated 11.01.2023 and to quash the same and consequently direct the second respondents to settle the balance pending amount of Rs.39,961/ as per the sanction Order in No.Na.Ka.No.A6/15/2014, dated 09.05.2018 and pass orders. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner availed the allotment and subsidiary for the construction of residential house under the scheme of Indira Awas Yojana Housing Scheme ( Indira Ninaivu 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Kudiyiruppu Thittam) 201415, vide the first respondent allotment order proceedings Na.Ka.No.A6/15/2024 dated 15.07.2014 and the petitioner was allotted a sum of Rs.1,20,000/ for the construction of the house. After the allotment the petitioner constructed the house in her own funds and thereafter the respondents disbursed a sum of Rs.79,789/ (in two installments) out of Rs.1,20,000/ under the said housing scheme. Thereafter, the second respondent/Block Development Officer directed the 3rd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.39,961/ to the petitioner by way of crossed cheque. However, the 3rd respondent has not disbursed the said amount. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to the second respondent who inturn sent a letter to the petitioner in Na.Ka.Aa6/3874/2022 dated 11.01.2023 stating that as per the E& R records in Volume 3/3 Page No.91/93 of IAY scheme, year 201415 no balance amount is pending to the petitioner. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has come up with this petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had borrowed money and spent on the belief that the second and third respondents will pay the alloted amount to him. He further 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis submitted that the letter of the District Rural Development agency in Na.Ka.No.Aa2/454/2023 dated 17.03.2023 addressed to the fi
Madras High Court G. Suryanarayanan S/O.Gomathinayagam vs P. Sathish S/O. Panneer on 18 April, 2024 A.S. (MD).No.23 of 2022 IN THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 21.02.2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 18.04.2024 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL A.S. (MD) No.23 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.868 of 2022 G. Suryanarayanan S/o.Gomathinayagam ... Petitioner vs. P. Sathish S/o. Panneer ... Respondent PRAYER: The Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure as against the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2021 passed in O.S. No.63 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Madurai. For Petitioners : Mr. D. Shanmugaraja Sethupathi For Respondents : Mr. M. Karthikeyan JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by P.DHANABAL,J.) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1 A.S. (MD).No.23 of 2022 This appeal suit has been preferred as against the decree and judgment passed in O.S. No.63 of 2019 on the file of 1st Additional District Court, Madurai dated 22.11.2021 wherein the respondent herein, being the plaintiff, has filed the Suit for recovery of money based on the cheque and the same was decreed as against the defendant, thereby the unsuccessful defendant preferred this appeal suit. 2. The brief averments are as follows: The plaintiff is doing General Stores business at Madurai in the name of “Meenakshi Marketing”. The vendors of the Madurai Keezha Maasi Street used to purchase and sell things on loan basis and they used to receive amount after one week. The defendant purchased things from the general stores of the plaintiff and thereby, there is due of Rs.15 lakhs as on 20.12.2017. Thereby, the defendant issued a postdated Cheque dated 20.01.2018 for Rs.15 lakhs drawn on ICICI Bank in favour of the plaintiff for the above said things purchased by him. On 20.01.2018, the plaintiff has approached the bank and enquired about the cheque, he came to know that there is no sufficient funds in the account of the defendant and the banker advised the plaintiff to settle the matter with the defendant. When https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 A.S. (MD).No.23 of 2022 the plaintiff approached the defendant in his house in respect of the payment of Rs.15 lakhs, he refused to pay the said amount. Therefore, the plaintiff gave a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner of Crime Branch, Madurai and the same was forwarded to the file of Inspector, Crime Branch, Vilakuthun Police Station and enquiry was conducted on 24.02.2018. The defendant, at the time of enquiry admitted his liability of Rs.15 lakhs and assured to pay a sum of Rs.7 lakhs within 6 months and the remaining amount of Rs.8 lakhs will be paid on 05.09.2018. To that effect, he has also submitted written statement before the police. The plaintiff also agreed for the same to receive the amount in two instalments. Therefore, the plaintiff did not present the cheque for collection and the date of three months’ limitation was lapsed on 20.04.2018. The defendant, only to make the cheque invalid, agreed to pay the amount after 6 months. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the Suit for recovery of money through