abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR PASWAN KUMAR Date: PASWAN 2025.08.20 17:02:24 +0530 Kalkaji, New Delhi110019. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, S/o Sh. A. N. sharma C15B, Ground Floor Shop (Left Side), C Block, Vishwakarma Colony, M B Road, New Delhi110044 Also At : RZ84, Gali No. 13, Tughlakabad Extension, New Delhi110019. ......... Defendants SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 3,22,741.06/ (RUPEES THREE LACS TWENTY TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY ONE ONLY) Date of institution : 14.08.2018 Date when judgment reserved : 12.08.2025 Date of Judgment : 19.08.2025 Final Decision : Decreed CS No. 1183/18 Page No. 2 of 9 Cico Technologies Limited Vs. M/s Nutech concrete ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR PASWAN Date: 2025.08.20 PASWAN 17:03:03 +0530 JUDGMENT CASE OF PLAINTIFF 1. Present suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.3,22,741.06/ payable under a written contract along with interest. It is submitted that plaintiff is a MSME Company and engaged in the business of manufacturing of construction material. The plaintiff was approached by the defendant and they placed request for supply of certain products of the plaintiff. The defendant issued two purchase orders bearing no. PO/NTC1415/004 dated 31.10.2014 and PO/NTC145/176 dated 06.01.2015 upon the plaintiff and relying upon defendant's undertaking to pay the amount as per invoices raised by the plaintiff, the plaintiff agreed to supply the material as per the purchase order. Plaintiff supplied the products and part payment of Rs.2,00,000/ was made by the defendant on 11.02.2015. There were certain complaint from the defendant with regard to material supplied to the plaintiff and therefore, the material was returned and the plaintiff accordingly gave credit of an amount of Rs.348494.04/ to the defendant. However, the defendant failed to make payment of remaining outstanding amount of Rs.322741.06/ despite various requests for which legal notice dated 30.04.2018 was sent and a reply dated 11.05.2018 was also received. Therefore, the present suit has been filed. WS OF DEFENDANT 2. It is submitted in the WS that the plaintiff has no cause of action in CS No. 1183/18 Page No. 3 of 9 Cico Technologies Limited Vs. M/s Nutech concrete Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR
STATE OF GUJARAT Appearance: SCA NO.4730 OF 2019 MR. UCHIT N SHETH, LD. ADV. for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 Page 1 of 177 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 16:35:21 IST 2020 C/SCA/4730/2019 CAV JUDGMENT SCA NO.6125 OF 2019 MR. D.K. PUJ, LD. ADV. for the Petitioner (s) No.1 SCA NO.6118 OF 2019 MR. UCHIT SHEHT, LD .ADV. for the Petitioner(s) No.1 SCA NO.9105 OF 2019 MR. PARESH M. DAVE, LD.ADV. For the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 SCA NO.10018 OF 2019 MR. TUSHAR HEMANI, LD ADV. with MS. VAIBHAVI K. PARIKH, LD ADV. for the Petitioner(s) No.1 MR. KAMAL B. TRIVEDI, LD. ADV. GENERAL with MS. MAITHILI MEHTA, LD. AGP with MR. SOHAM JOSHI, LD. AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 in all the petitions. and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C. RAO Date : 23/12/2019 CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. Since the issues raised in all the captioned writ applications are the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. We have been called upon to look into and interpret the provisions of Sections 129 and 130 respectively of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short "the CGST Act") amidst lot of hue and cry at the instance of the Page 2 of 177 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 16:35:21 IST 2020 C/SCA/4730/2019 CAV JUDGMENT writ applicants (dealers) redressing the grievance that the authorities concerned are invoking the power to confiscate the goods and the conveyance under Section 130 of the GST Act arbitrarily and without any application of mind. In such circumstances, we need to look into the two provisions and try to ascertain whether the two provisions overlap or are independent of each other. We take notice of the fact that both the provisions, i.e., Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act start with a nonostante clause. 3. For the sake of convenience, we treat the Special Civil Application No.4730 of 2019 as the lead matter. 4. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicants have prayed for the following reliefs; "(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside notice dated 1.3.2009 (annexed at Annexure A) issued by the learned Respondent No.2; (B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the learned Respondent authorities to forthwith release goods with truck no.GJ07UU7250 by quashing and setting aside the detention notices/orders issue for such purpose (annexed at Annexure F); (C ) Pending notice, admission and final hearing of this petition, this Hon'ble Co
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.) This appeal suit has been preferred as against the decree and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1 A.S. (MD).No.23 of 2022 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 the plaintiff approached the defendant in his house in respect of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 A.S. (MD).No.23 of 2022 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
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 objectio
Delhi High Court Arun Kumar Gurjar vs Central Buraeu Of Investigation on 22 March, 2024 $~ * % Reserved on: December 07, 2023 Decided on: March 22, 2024 + CRL.A. 630/2015 ARUN KUMAR GURJAR ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Ms. Soughanya Shankaran, Mr. Ayush Shrivastava, Mr. Madhav Aggarwal, Ms. Anandita Rana and Ms. P. Barsaiyan, Advocates V CENTRAL BURAEU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, SPP for CBI with Ms. Khushal Saini, Advocate + CRL.A. 643/2015 BALJEET SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Tiwari, Mr. Anil Kumar, Mr. Siddharth Singh and Ms. Sanskriti, Advocates V CBI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, SPP Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 1 17:36:55 for CBI with Ms. Khushal Saini, Advocate CORAM HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN JUDGMENT 1. The present appeals are filed appeal under section 374 read with 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") for setting aside the judgment dated 20.05.2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment") and order on sentence dated 21.05.2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned order") passed by the court of Sh. Sanjeev Jain, Special Judge (PC Act)/CBI03, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in case titled as CBI V Arun Kumar Gurjar & another in CC no. 50/2012 arising out of RC bearing no. CBI/AC I/RCA0003/2010 dated 29.12.2010 registered by CBI, ACU (I), New Delhi under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC") read with section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "PC Act") and substantive offence under section 7 of the PC Act and for acquittal of the appellants. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 2 17:36:55 2. The factual background of the case as appearing from charge sheet is that Pawan Aggarwal, Partner of M/s Madhya Pradesh Vanijya Company, 3958/2, Naya Bazar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") made a written complaint
INTEROCEAN SHIP REPAIRS LLC Appearance in OJCA 1/18 in AS 22/18: MR PRATHAMESH KAMAT with MR SHIVKUMAR IYER with MS ADITI MAHESHWARI with MR TEJAS P SATTA for the applicant MR VISHAL SHETH with MR RISHI MURARKA with MS PAURAMI B SHETH for the opponent Appearance in OJCA 1/18 in AS 24/18: MR SAURABH N SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE assisted by MR PRATHAMESH KAMAT with MR SHIVKUMAR IYER with MS ADITI MAHESHWARI with MR TEJAS P SATTA for the applicant MR VISHAL SHETH with MR RISHI MURARKA with MS PAURAMI B SHETH for the opponent Date : 15/10/2018 COMMON CAV IA ORDER 1. In both these applications, identical contentions more or less the same and identical contentions are raised and hence were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. Admiralty Suit no.22 of Page 1 of 111 C/AS/22/2018 IA ORDER 2018 was filed on 18.6.2018, wherein the plaintiff has prayed for the following reliefs:­ "a) for a decree in its favour and against the defendant vessel in the sum of AED 598,487 along with further interest @ 12% p.a. on the principal sum of AED 535,000 from the date of filing of this suit till payment/ realization and for costs of INR 500,000, as per the particulars of the plaintiff's claim. b) That the defendant vessel RORO SHAKER 1 [IMO No. 7929102], along with her hull, gear engines, tackle, bunkers, machinery, plant, furniture, fixtures, equipment boats, apparel and other paraphernalia at present lying in port and harbor Bhavnagar/ Alang and/or within the territorial waters over which this Hon'ble Court exercises jurisdiction be ordered to be arrested under a warrant of arrest issued by this Hon'ble Court; c) That the defendant vessel, RORO SHAKER 1 [IMO No.7929102] along with her hull, gear engines, tackle, bunkers, machinery plant, furniture, fixtures, equipment boats, apparel and other paraphernalia at present lying in port and harbour of Bhavnagar/Aland and/or within the territorial waters over which this Hon'ble Court exercises jurisdiction be detained, condemned and sold under orders and directions of this Honourable Court and the sale proceeds thereof be applied towards the satisfaction of the plaintiff's Page 2 of 111 C/AS/22/2018 IA ORDER claim in the suit; d) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the defendant vessel, RORO SHAKER 1 [IMO No.7929102], along with her hull, gear engines, tackle, bunkers, machinery, plant, furniture, fixtures, equipment boats, apparel and other paraphernalia be arrested and detained under the orders of this Hon'ble Court and/or be restrained by an order of injunction of this Hon'ble Court from sailing out of the port and harbour of Alang and/or moving out of the territorial waters of India; e) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the defendant vessel, RORO SHAKER 1 [IMO No. 7929102], be appraised by any suitable marine surveyors according to true value thereof and upon such value certified in writing by the said surveyors to sell the said vessel by public auction free and
Madras High Court T.Senguttuvan … vs Ashokkumar on 28 May, 2025 2025:MHC:1271 E.P.No.9 of 2021 RESERVED ON : 02.09.2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 28.05.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA E.L.P.No.9 of 2021 T.Senguttuvan … Petitioner Vs 1.Ashokkumar, K. 2.Chandramohan, K.M. 3.Tamilselvan, S. 4.Ameenulla 5.Sasikumar, K.S. 6.Nirandari, V. 7.Ravishankar, R.K. 8.Ruthramani, T. 9.Vijayakumar, R. 10.TVS Gandhi 11.Kumaresan, M 12. Gopinath, M. 13.Sakthi, K. 14.Sivan, C. 19.G.Karpagavalli 1/150 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 11:38:57 am ) E.P.No.9 of 2021 (Respondents 15 to 18 struck off in ELP.No.9 of 2021 as per order of this Court dated 11.01.2022 made in O.A.No.672 of 2021 in ELP.No.9 of 2021) ... Respondents Prayer: Election Petition filed under Sections 80, 80A, 81, 84 r/w Sections 100, 101, 123, 123(6) & 129 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 R/w. The conduct of Election Rules, 1961, for the following reliefs: i) declare the election of the 1st respondent to No.53, Krishnagiri Assembly Constituency in the State of Tamil Nadu on 02.05.2021 as illegal, void and liable to be set aside. ii) Declare the petitioner herein as duly elected to the No.53, Krishnagiri Assembly Constituency in State of Tamil Nadu with effect from 02.05.2021. iii) Direct the 1st respondent to pay the cost of the petition. For Petitioner : Mr.Richardson Wilson For Respondent1 : Mr.P.V.Ramanjujam, Senior counsel for Mr.BAravind Srivatsa ORDER 2/150 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 11:38:57 am ) E.P.No.9 of 2021 Challenging the election of the 1st respondent as the returned candidate of No.53, Krishnagiri Assembly Constituency, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs: i) Declare the election of the 1st respondent to No.53, Krishnagiri Assembly Constituency in the State of Tamil Nadu on 02.05.2021 as illegal, void and liable to be set aside. ii) Declare the petitioner herein as duly elected to the No.53, Krishnagiri Assembly Constituency in State of Tamil Nadu with effect from 02.05.2021 and iii) Direct the 1st respondent to pay the cost of the petition. 3. Petitioner's case: (i) It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (hereinafter referred to as "DMK party") and has been a resident of Velgalahally Village having been born there. The petitioner has been active in the political arena since his young age having been inspired by great leaders like Periyar, Perarignar Anna and 3/150 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 11:38:57 am )
M/s Jay Bee Industries and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present : Mr. Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate for the respondents. *** AVNEESH JHINGAN , J.(Oral) 1. This appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') being aggrieved of order dated 13th July, 2021 of modifying the award under Section 34 of the Act. 2. The brief facts are that appellants had placed an order for supply of transformer with respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as 'respondent'). The terms and conditions provided for dispute settlement through arbitration. As the respondent was registered under the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short 'MSME Act') the arbitrator was appointed by MSME council for deciding the claim. On the objections filed by respondent, the award was modified on 13th July, 2021. The respondent was held entitled to pendentelite interest on the awarded amount. 3. The operational part of the impugned order is reproduced below: "The contention raised in this objection petition has not been seriously disputed by respondents No.1 and 2. Even no reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on 07062023 08:19:37 ::: Neutral Citation No: FAO28222021 2 As such, the objection petition is accepted . Award dated 15.04.2019 of learned Arbitrator is modified to the effect that the claimant shall be entitled to pendentelite interest on the awarded amount from October, 2018 till 15.04.2019 i.e. up to date of award; and future interest from the date of Award till realization, as per Section 16 of the MSMED Act." 4. The grievance of the appellant is that in exercise of power under Section 34 of the Act, the interest could not have been awarded by modifying the award. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent on instructions submits that his client is not claiming the relief granted vide order dated 13th July, 2021 by modifying the award. 6. It would not be out of place to mention here that the appellant had not challenged the award by filing the appeal. 7. In view of the consent given by learned counsel for the respondent, no further interference is called for and accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. (AVNEESH JHINGAN ) JUDGE th 15 March, 2023 Parveen Sharma Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Neutral Citation No: 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on 07062023 08:19:37 :::