abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
1. Union of India through the Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi 110001. 2. The General Manager, North Western Railway, Jawahar Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur302017. ...Respondents/(Applicant in OA). (By Adv: Shri V.D. Sharma) 2 RA No. 07/2023 IN OA No. 203/2023 ORDER Per : Hon'ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A) This Review Application, that is filed by the Respondents/Applicants under Section 22(3) (f) and (h) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 read with Rule 11 (8) (i) (ii), 17 and 24 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1987 and Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC 1908, seeks the Review of the exparte Order dated 03.05.2023 passed in O.A. No. 203/2023 filed on 02.05.2023 titled as Ramesh Chand Meena vs. North Western Railway &Anr and also that the said exparte Order dated 03.05.2023 be set aside. 2. In the said O.A. No. 203/2023, the Applicant/Non Petitioner had inter alia sought that the Respondents be directed to promote the Applicant to the post of Law Officer Group'B' under upgradation similar as had been granted previously to Shri D.P. Gupta ; and further to restructure the legal cadre of North Western Railway and complete the cadre restructuring initiated vide Order dated 24.12.2021 in time bound manner, preferably within two months. 3 RA No. 07/2023 IN OA No. 203/2023 3. The said O.A. was heard by this Tribunal exparte on 03.05.2023 and was decided by passing the following Order: "4. We find that since there was a Contempt Petition filed by Shri D.P. Gupta, and during the pendency, one post of Law Officer from RCF was transferred to NWR and Shri D.P. Gupta was promoted as Law Officer in Group'B' vide order dated 26.09.2022 and accordingly, Contempt Petition was withdrawn. We find that Respondent No.2 had already sought upgradation of five posts of Law Officers Group'B' as per letter dated 12.03.2019. The said proposal we find is still pending for implementation for reasons best known. We find that since applicant is similarly situated employee delaying his promotion is neither just nor legal and same amounts to hostile discrimination. As the applicant is also facing financial stagnation as Shri D.P. Gupta, we find that the case of the applicant is exactly similar to that of Shri D.P. Gupta. 5. We thus direct the Respondents to restructure the legal cadre as even after proposal dated 12.03.2019 reminder dated 03.01.2020 and their own assurance vide letter dated 17.09.2019 as well as the process of initiation of cadre restructuring vide letter dated 24.12.2021 the said issue has not attained its finality. Since the case of Applicant is similar to that of Shri D.P. Gupta, the Respondents are therefore directed to promote the applicant to the post of Law Officer Group'B' under upgradation by granting similar benefits as has been granted to Shri D.P. Gupta. The Respondents are further directed to complete the said procedure at the earliest preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Accordingly, Original Application is disposed of with directions as
Delhi High Court Awadhesh K. Singh And Others vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 April, 2012 * % Judgment reserved on: 10.4.2012 Judgment pronounced on: 17.4.2012 + W.P.(C) 2251522518/2005 & CM No.1469214694/2005, 6787/2006, 7955/2006, 15087/2008 & 1536/2012 Indian Telecom Service Association & Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2221722257/2005 & CMs No.14646/2005, 14648/2005 Arun Gupta And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2225822463/2005 & CMs No.14652/2005 & 14655/2005 Mukesh Kumar Chauhan And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 22783/2005 S.K.Talware ... Petitioner versus Union of India ... Respondents W.P(C) 2312423126/2005 Page 1 of 26 + W.P.(C) 2278422788/2005 & CM No.16074/2005 Pushpender Singh And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2278922847/2005 & CMs No.12817/2006, 13732/2006 & 14503/2006 Akhilesh Trivedi ... Petitioners versus Union of India ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 23093/2005 Rakesh Kumar Tripathi ... Petitioner versus Union of India ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2312423126/2005 Awadhesh K. Singh And Others ... Petitioners versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents W.P(C) 2312423126/2005 Page 2 of 26 + W.P.(C) 23655/2005 Gajender Kumar Yadav ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 1238012382/2006 & CMs No.9467/2006, 11074/2008 & 14543/2008 MTNL Executive Welfare Association ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Another ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 17618/2006 & CMs No. 1458814589/2006 & 170/2007 A.K.Sharma ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents + W.P.(C) 3414/2007 & CM No.63966397/2007 Vinay Saran ... Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. VSR Krishna and Ms. Swati Sharma in WP(C) 2221522257/2005 Mr. Yasoban Das, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K.Srivastava, Mr. Ashish W.P(C) 2312423126/2005 Page 3 of 26 Sindhu and Mr. Arvind Tiwari in WP(C) 22789/2005 Mr. A.K.Srivastava and Mr. Ashish Sindhu in WP(C) 22783/2005, 22784/2005, 22789/2005, 23093/2005, 23124/2005 & 23655/2005 For Respondent : Mr. A.S.Chandhiok, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. B.V.Niren, Mr Prasouk Jain, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma & Mr. Pratap for UoI Mr. Ravi Sikri with Mr. Vaibhav Kalra for MTNL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This batch of writ petitions are directed against the orders dated 21.10.2005 and 31.10.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in OA No. 1963/2005 and other connected OAs. 2. Pursuant to its
Madras High Court (Ora/2/2021/Pt/Ch) vs James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd on 30 April, 2025 2025:MHC:1141 Order reserved on 21.04.2025 Order pronounced on 30.04.2025 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.182 of 2023 & (T) OP(TM) No.10 of 2024 (ORA/2/2021/PT/CH) M/s. P.V.S.Knittings, A registered partnership firm No.3H, Soosaiyapuram Colony Road, Rayapuram, Tirupur641 601. ... Plaintiff and Petitioner v. P. Prakash Sole Proprietor, trading as M/s. S P S TEX No.98, 4th Street, Solipalayam, 15 Velampalayam Road, Tirupur641 652. ... Defendant and Respondent PRAYER in C.S.(CD) No.182 of 2023: This Civil Suit (Comm. Div.) filed under Order VII Rule 1 CPC read with Order IV Rule 1 OS Rules read with Sections 27, 28, 29, 134 & 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and Sections 51, 55 & 62 of the Copyrights Act, 1957, praying to grant a judgment and decree on the following terms: __________ Page 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:01 pm ) a) a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, by itself, its partners, men, servants, agents, distributors, stockiest, representatives or any one claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's registered trade mark TWIN BIRDS under No.3609862 in class 25 or other formative trademarks by suing a deceptively similar trademark FLY BIRDS or any other trademark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade mark or in any other manner whatsoever; b) a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, by itself, its partners, men, servants, agents, distributors, stockiest representatives or any one claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the artistic work depicted in the TWIN BIRDS label with the use of the two birds device by using the FLY BIRDS label with the use of the two birds in the same colour scheme of pink and white which is a substantial reproduction of the said artistic work or by use of any other label identical or similar to the plaintiff's artistic work in the TWIN BIRDS label or in any other manner whatsoever; c) a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, by itself, its partners, men, servants, agents, distributors, stockiest, representatives or any one claiming through or under them from in __________ Page 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 06:10:01 pm ) any manner passing off and/or enabling others to pass off the Defendants' products under the trademark FLY BIRDS with the use of the two birds in the same colour scheme of pink and white as and for the plaintiffs' products by manufacturing, selling, or offering to sell, distributing, displaying, printing, stocking, using, advertising their products with a trademark FLY BIRDS or any other trade mark which is identical or similar to the plaintiff's trademark and trade dress for their TWIN BIRDS or in any other manner whatsoever; d) the Defendant be ordered to surrender to Plaintiffs for destruction of all produc
State of Odisha, represented through the CommissionercumSecretary, School and Mass Education Department, Bhubaneswar, Dist: Khurda and others ... Opp. Parties (In all cases) For Petitioners : Mr. R.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate (in W.P.(C) No.13203 of 2013) M/s D.Mohanty, S.Mohanty, A.Mohanty & S.Mohanty For Petitioner : Mr.R.K.Rath, Sr. Advocate (in W.P.(C) No.14475 of 2013) Mr.Digambara Mishra For Petitioner : M/s Deepali Mahapatra, (in W.P.(C) No.14524 of 2013) K.Bhuyan 2 For Petitioner : M/s Milan Kanungo, (in W.P.(C) No.13590 of 2013) P.R.Singh, S.K.Kanungo, S.K.Mishra & S.Das For Opp. Parties : Mr. Asok Mohanty Advocate General Mr.S.Parida, Sr. Standing Counsel for School & Mass Education Deptt. (In all cases) P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE I. MAHANTY AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE B.N.MAHAPATRA Date of Judgment: 20.12.2013 B.N. Mahapatra, J. Petitioners in the aforesaid four Writ Petitions have assailed the Tender Call Notice floated for printing and binding of Nationalized Text books on the ground that it is the outcome of unilateral decision taken by opposite party No.1CommissionerCumSecretary, School and Mass Education Department to go for National Tender for supply of Text books. The said Tender Call Notice (for short, "TCN") was published in the Odia daily 'Dharitri' on 07.06.2013 under Annexure1 by opposite party No.2Director, Text Book Production and Marketing, Bhubaneswar. 2. Petitioners' case in a nutshell is that there are 5000 printing presses and binders which have been set up under the approval of respective District Industries Centres (for short, 'DIC') under the 3 Industrial Policy framed by the Industries Department, Government of Odisha. Many technicians, skilled and unskilled labourers are engaged in those organizations and maintaining their livelihood from their wages/ salaries. Admittedly, petitioners are small scale industrial units and they have engaged a number of workers including artisans from Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and physically challenged categories. Earlier a resolution was passed on 13.11.2009 by the State Government taking a decision to purchase the materials for printing works of the Nationalized Text books through National Tender. Challenging such resolution, some of the petitioners preferred W.P.(C) No.2862 of 2010 before this Court and vide order dated 19.05.2010, the said resolution was quashed by this Court directing the opposite parties to award the printing and binding work of the Nationalized Text books to such Small Scale Industrial Units (for short, 'SSIU') of the State like that of the petitioners. 3. Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the impugned TCN published in the Odia daily 'Dharitri' on 07.06.2013 under Annexure1 being contrary to industrial policy resolution, cannot sus
Mumbai400021. Mumbai400021. PAN NO. AADCS 2973 A Appellant Respondent ITA Nos. 3606, 3605, 3603, 3602, 3614 & 3610, 3601/MUM/2023 Assessment Years: 201415 to 201819 & 202021 to 202122 DCIT Central Circle4(4), M/s Sanman Trade Impex Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India 1410, Maker Chamber V, Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai400021. Mumbai400021. PAN NO. AADCS 2973 A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rakesh Joshi Revenue by : Dr. Kishor Dhule, CITDR Date of He aring : 13/05/2024 Date of pronouncement : 24/07/2024 M/s Sanman Trade Impex Ltd. 2 ITA Nos. 3491, 3474, 3473, 3472 & 3471, 3470/MUM/2023 3606, 3605, 3603, 3602, 3614 & 3610, 3601/MUM/2023 ORDER PER BENCH The captioned appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are directed against separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income (Appeals)52, 52, Mumbai [in short 'the Ld. CIT(A)'] for assessment years 201415 2014 to 201819 and 202021 to 202122. Being common n issue in dispute disputes involved in these appeals, appeals same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. 2. First of all, we take up the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue for assessment year 201415. 2014 15. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal in ITA No. 3491/Mum/2023 are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the ned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Learned Learned Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment completed u/s.143(3) r.w. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. circumstances of the case as well as in law, the 2. On the facts and circumstances Learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the assessing officer to examine therealization of exports, without considering the facts & circumstances of the case and the provisions of the Act. circumstances of the case as well as in law, the 3. On the facts and circumstances Learned CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition to the extent of Rs. u/s 69C of the Act, without considering the facts & 29,63,580/u/s circumstances of the case. M/s Sanman Trade Impex Ltd. 3 ITA Nos. 3491, 3474, 3473, 3472 & 3471, 3470/MUM/2023 3606, 3605, 3603, 3602, 3614 & 3610, 3601/MUM/2023 2.1 The grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal in ITA No. 3606/Mum/2023 are reproduced as under: 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the addition of amortization on goodwill of Rs. 16,16,00,000/ to book profit for the purpose of MAT u/s 115JB of the Act, 1961." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made towards disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 10AA of the
Madras High Court The Tamil Nadu Medical vs Uttar Pradesh State Micro And on 18 October, 2024 W.P.No.10688 of 2024 DATED : 18.10.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.No.10688 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.11478 & 11479 of 2024 The Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited, 417, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Rep. by its Managing Director. .... Petitioner Vs 1.Uttar Pradesh State Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Sarvodaya Nagar, G.T.Road, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh – 205 005. Rep. by its Chairman. 2. M/s.Atul Generators Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Nunhai, Agra – 282 006. .... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the order passed by the first respondent in claim petition No.26/2012 dated 28.11.2016 and quash the same. Page 1 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.10688 of 2024 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ramanlal Additional Advocate GeneralII Assisted by Mr.Habeeb Rahman Government Advocate For R1 : No appearance For R2 : Mr.Sathish Parasran Senior Counsel ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the award dated 30.10.2023 in claim petition No.26 of 2012 on the file of the first respondent. 2. The petitioner is a Nodal Agency for procurement and distribution of drugs, surgical and suture items for about 11,000 Government Medical Institutions all over Tamil Nadu. It procures and supplies the equipment and goods to the Government hospitals as and when instructed by the Government or by the Directorates of Health and Family Welfare Department. In order to procure drugs, medicines, surgical and sutures, the tenders would be floated as and when the requirement for the equipment arises. Accordingly, in the year 2009, the petitioner floated an open tender for supply, installation and Page 2 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.10688 of 2024 commissioning of 130 Nos of 5 KVA diesel generator set (DG set) to various Primary Health Centres in the State of Tamil Nadu in which the second respondent become the lowest bidder and the work order was placed for a total value of Rs.2,05,39,740/ with a delivery period of 90 days. If the supplier failed to deliver the goods within a period of 90 days from the date of signing of agreement, liquidated damages will be levied at 0.5% of the value of the delayed goods or unperformed services of each week of delay or part thereof until actual delivery or performance up to a maximum deduction of 10% of the contract price. Further, 10% advance amount was payable within 30 days from the date of signing of contract agreement and against submission of bank guarantee for equivalent amount. 3. According to the petitioner, there was a delay in supply
National Silkworm Seed Organization (Through its Director) Central Silk Board, CSB Complex, IV Floor, B.T.M. Layout, Hosur Road, Madivala, Banglore560068. .........Defendant Date of Institution : 23.07.2016 Date of Reserving Order : 01.03.2025 Date of Decision : 27.03.2025 SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.3,43,370/. Digitally CS NO.3005/16 (Jagdish Kabra VS. National Silkworm Seed Organization) PgNo.1/17 signed by HEM HEM SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.27 16:30:45 +0530 JUDGMENT (I) BRIEF FACTS: 1. The present suit filed for recovery of Rs.3,43,370/ along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum against the defendant. a) The plaintiff is a proprietor of M/s Kabra Hand Made Paper Industries having its office at: B47, United India Apartments, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI (Extension), Delhi110091 and registered under Small Scale Industries (NSIC) for the last 37 years. The plaintifffirm had been doing business with various government departments/ organizations and plaintiff has never faced any dispute in carrying out his business. Defendant in the month of June, 2015 floated a nationwide e tender (two bids system technical and financial) for supply of kraft sheets. The bidder has to qualify technical bid to participate in financial bid and the last date for submission of tender was 06.07.2015 and technical bid opened on 06.07.2015. In view of the same, plaintiff had submitted his etender at Delhi within the prescribed time and also mailed all the documents/ papers through courier to the defendant. The plaintifffirm has also attached the two samples of COLOUR VARIATIONS and SIMPLE SPECIFICATION of the Kraft Paper Sheet thereby mentioning Grammage, Size, One Minute Cob Test and PH Min. Upon receipt of bid of the plaintiff and after verifying the same, defendant called the plaintiff for supply of 'Full Sheet' of Kraft Paper. Thereafter, plaintiff vide letter dated 06.08.2015 sent a full sheet of kraft paper to the full satisfaction of defendant. Upon Digitally CS NO.3005/16 (Jagdish Kabra VS. National Silkworm Seed Organization) PgNo.2/17 signed by HEM HEM SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.27 16:30:51 +0530 full satisfaction, defendant vide letter dated 02.09.2015 informed the plaintifffirm that its technical bid has been accepted for opening of financial bid and further informed about the date of opening of the same i.e. 03.09.2015. After evaluation of financial bids of the shortlisted firms/ companies, defendant accepted the financial bid of plaintiff and the same was intimated to the plaintiff by defendant through letter dated 04.11.2015 vide quotation no. KHMP/KHMPI/CSB/Bang/1516 dated 29.06.2015 and placed the order for supply of 1,10,000 brown kraft sheets @ Rs.1,441/ per ream. Vide sai
47/C, DDA Shopping Centre, Circle12(1), (Now Circle New Friends Colony, 10(2), New Delhi CR Building, IP Estate, PAN: AAACG1622K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 1106/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 21011) DCIT, Vs. M/s. Guajarat Guardian Ltd, Circle12(1), (Now Circle10(2), 47/C, DDA Shopping CR Building, IP Estate, Centre, New Delhi New Friends Colony, New Delhi PAN: AAACG1622K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv Ms. Shaily Gupta, CA Revenue by: Smt Meeta Singh CIT DR Date of Hearing 14/05/2018 Date of pronouncement 16/08/2018 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. Assessee has filed this appeal against the order passed by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12 (1), New Delhi [The LD AO] dated 26 12 2014 passed under section 144C Of The Income Tax Act, Page | 1 Gujarat Guradian Limited V DCIT DCIT V Gujarat Guradian Limited A Y 201011 ITA No 1106 & 973/Del/2015 1961 [The Act] for assessment year 2010 11 pursuant to direction of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel iV, New Delhi [The Ld DRP] dated 21/11/2014 under section 144 C (5) of the Act. The Ld. assessing officer is also aggrieved by the direction of the Ld. Dispute resolution panel and therefore he has filed an appeal before us. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA NO. 973/Del/2015: "1. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in completing the assessment under section 144C of the Incometax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) at an income of Rs.91,19,37,560/ as against the income of Rs.70,51,03,214/ returned by the appellant. 2. That the Dispute Resolution Panel („DRP‟) / assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing expenses of Rs.90,44,496/ alleging the same to be incurred for earning exempt dividend income of Rs.7,10,41,503/ from investment in mutual funds, invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. 2.1 That the DRP / assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment activity was not passive activity but was well informed and coordinated activity involving input from the various sources and acumen of senior management functionary and hence there was cost inbuilt into such investment activity. 2.2 That the DRP / assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that, the appropriate cost of composite funds needed to be allocated towards earning of exempt income. 2.3 That the DRP / assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that apportionment of expenses is not allowed under section 14A of the Act and only expenses having direct/ proximate nexus with earning of