abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Delhi High Court Union Of India vs Pushkar Paint Industries on 8 February, 2023 2023/DHC/000894 * % Date of Decision: 08th February, 2023 + O.M.P.(T)(COMM)43/2019 UNION OF INDIA Integrated HQ MOD (Army) Directorate General of Ordnance Services MGO's Branch (CP CELL), OSP1, Procurement Sector, Room No. 105, D11 Wing, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi 110011 ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Mr. Mukesh Tiwari, Ms. Mansi Verma, Advocates. versus PUSHKAR PAINT INDUSTRIES Office at: Badri Saraf Bhawan, B92, Sector C, Mahanagar, Lucknow 226006 (Uttar Pradesh) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ashish Khorana, Advocate. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA JUDGEMENT NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. 1. The present petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration & Conciliation (Amended) Act, 2015 has been filed for termination of mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal. Signature Not Verified O.M.P.(T)(COMM)43/2019 Page 1 of 15 Digitally Signed By:PRIYANKA ANEJA Signing Date:08.02.2023 15:02:49 2023/DHC/000894 2. The petitioner herein (who is the respondent in the arbitration proceedings) is the Ordnance Department (Indian Army) under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. A Supply Order dated 30.05.2014 for procurement of Paint Qty. 42,180 amounting to ₹1,06,19,923.49 was placed upon respondent No.1. However, respondent No.1 failed to submit the advance sample within time in terms of the Contract, leading to huge losses to the petitioner which was compelled to cancel the Supply Order. The Bank Guarantee of ₹10,61,992/ submitted by respondent No.1, was forfeited. The Respondent No.1 challenged the forfeiture by way of Writ Petition before the High Court of Allahabad. However, vide Order dated 11.05.2017 the Writ Petition was dismissed with a liberty to the parties to invoke arbitration proceedings in terms of Arbitration Clause 3 contained in the Agreement between the parties. 3. The petitioner was supposed to choose the name of Arbitrator from the Panel of Arbitrators to work as Arbitrator on payment of fees decided by the Department. The name of Shri B.L. Chaudhary who was not on the Panel of Arbitrators, was chosen with the consent of both the parties. The learned Sole Arbitrator was ExJoint Secretary and Legal Advisor in Ministry of Law and Justice and had been holding various positions in Government of India and was last working as Advisor (Legal) in Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Government of India. 4. The learned Arbitrator initiated arbitration proceedings by sending a Notice of hearing dated 17.10.2017 and conducted first hearing on 15.11.2017. Without clarifying or deciding the fee, the petitioner being a Government department was following its Department's Schedule which prescribed the Arbitrator's fees of ₹5,000/ per hearing subject to a Signature Not Verified O.M.P.(T)(COMM)43/2019
CCI & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant: Mr. Gautam Shahi, Mr. Narinder Kr. Verma, Advocates For Respondents: Mr. Udayan Jain, Mr. Raj Surana, Advocates for R1/CCI Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Mr. Aayush, Mr. Rajat Srivastava, Ms. Zeba Zoariah, Advocates Ms. Shama Nargis, Dy Director (Law) CCI. With Competition Appeal (AT) No. 91 of 2018 IN THE MATTER OF: Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Ester India Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Singh, Mr. Devansh Shekhar, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Ms. Hima Bhardwaj, Advocates for CCI/R1. Ms. Shama Nargis, Dy Director (Law) CCI. With Competition Appeal (AT) No. 92 of 2018 Competition Appeal (AT) Nos. 86,91,92,93&98,94,97,99,100,101,102,103,104 of 2018 Competition Appeal (AT) Nos. 03,05,06,07,08,10 of 2019 2 IN THE MATTER OF: Mawana Sugars Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Competition Commission of India & Anr. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant: Mr. P.K. Bhalla, Mr. Gagan, Advocates For Respondent: Ms. Shama Nargis, Dy Director (Law) CCI. Mr. Udayan Jain, Mr. Raj Surana, Advocates for R1/CCI With Competition Appeal (AT) No. 93 & 98 of 2018 IN THE MATTER OF: Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Competition Commission of India & Anr. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant: Mr. M.M. Sharma, Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash Singh, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Ms. Hima Bhardwaj, Advocates for CCI/R1 Ms. Shama Nargis, Dy Director (Law) CCI. Ms. Srishti Vashisht, RA, CCI With Competition Appeal (AT) No. 94 of 2018 IN THE MATTER OF: Uttam Sugar Mills Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Competition Commission of India & Ors. ...Respondents Present: Competition Appeal (AT) Nos. 86,91,92,93&98,94,97,99,100,101,102,103,104 of 2018 Competition Appeal (AT) Nos. 03,05,06,07,08,10 of 2019 3 For Appellant: Mr Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Mr. Devansh Shekhar, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Ms. Hima Bhardwaj, Advocates for CCI/R1. Ms. Shama Nargis, Dy Director (Law) CCI With Competition Appeal (AT) No. 97 of 2018 IN THE MATTER OF: Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Ester India Chemicals Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant: Mr. Rishi Agarwal, Mr. Pranjit Bhattacharya, Ms. Tarini Khurana, Advocates For Respondent: Ms. Shama Nargis, Dy Director (Law) CCI. Mr. Udayan Jain, Mr. Raj Surana, Advocates for R1/CCI With Competition Appeal (AT) No. 99 of 2018 IN THE MATTER OF: The Andhra Sugars Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Competition Commission of India & Ors. ...Respondents Present: For Appellant: Mr. Avdhesh Bairwa, Mr. Aryan Srivastava, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Udayan Jain, Mr. Raj Surana, Advocates for CCI/R1 Ms. Shama Nargis, Dy. Director (Law) CCI. With Competition Appeal (AT) No. 100 of 2018 IN THE MATTER OF: Competition Appeal (AT) Nos. 86,91,92,93&98,94,97,99,100,101,102,103,104 of 2018 Competition Appeal (AT) Nos. 03,05,06,07,08,10
Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Another …..Respondents JUDGMENT Sanjiv Khanna, CJI Leave granted. 2. The seminal issue which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would be maintainable against an order passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council 1 in exercise of power under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by and if yes, under what circumstances. Deepak Guglani Date: 2025.01.22 15:48:28 IST Reason: 1 For short, ‘MSEFC’. 2 For short, ‘MSMED Act’. Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) Diary No.3776/2023 Page 1 of 24 3. Section 18 of the MSMED Act reads as under: “Reference to Micro and Smal enterprises Facilitation Council.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any party to a dispute may, with regard to any amount due under section 17, make a reference to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. (2) On receipt of a reference under subsection (1), the Council shall either itself conduct conciliation in the matter or seek the assistance of any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services by making a reference to such an institution or centre, for conducting conciliation and the provisions of sections 65 to 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to such a dispute as if the conciliation was initiated under Part III of that Act. (3) Where the conciliation initiated under subsection (2) is not successful and stands terminated without any settlement between the parties, the Council shall either itself take up the dispute for arbitration or refer it to any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services for such arbitration and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall then apply to the dispute as if the arbitration was in pursuance of an arbitration agreement referred to in subsection(1) of section 7 of that Act. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council or the centre providing alternate dispute resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as an Arbitrator or Conciliator under this section in a dispute between the supplier located within its jurisdiction and a buyer located anywhere in India. (5) Every reference made under this section shall be decided within a period of ninety days from the date of making such a reference.” 4. A two Judges Bench of this Court in Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. State of Rajasthan and Others,3 after interpreting the provisions of the MSMED Act, including the powers of the MSEFC under subsection (2) and (3) of Section 18, had observed: 3 (2021) 19 SCC 206. Civil Appeal a/o. SLP (C) Diary No.3776/2023 Page 2 of 24 “14. From a reading of Sections 18(2) and 18(3) of the Msmed Act
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED Appearance: BANSI M KARIA(9320) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 RAJVI N PATEL(9620) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR AJAY R MEHTA(453) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 Date : 27/02/2020 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The word 'domicile' is "to identify the personal law by which an individual is governed in respect of various matters such as the essential validity of a marriage, the effect of marriage on the proprietary rights of husband and wife, jurisdiction in divorce and nullity of marriage, illegitimacy, legitimation and adoption and testamentary and intestate succession to moveables. "Domicile" as pointed Page 2 of 65 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 06:36:37 IST 2020 C/SCA/2053/2020 JUDGMENT out in Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition) vol. 8, paragraph 421 is the legal relationship between an individual and a territory with a distinct legal system, which invokes that system as his personal law.It is well settled that the domicile of a person in that country in which he either has or is deemed by law to have his permanent home. "By domicile" said Lord Cranworth in Wicker v. Humes, [1858] 7 HL Cases 124, "We mean home, the permanent home". 2. "Domicile" is basically a legal concept for the purpose of determining what is the personal law applicable to an individual and even if a
1.The Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai Region, Rep. by its Chairperson, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. 2.M/s.Shree Shara Enterprises Flat No.1/46, E.Tamilarasu, Malima Nagar, Vilangadupakkam, Perumal Koil Street, Ground Floor, Chennai – 600 052 ..Respondents. PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order dated 28.12.2022 in MSEFC/CR/111/2022, Online 1/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22059 of 2023 Application No.TN 020079779/M/00001 passed by the first respondent herein and to quash the same. For Petitioner :Mr.B.Deepak Narayanan For Respondent 1 : Mrs.S.Anitha Special Government Pleader For Respondent 2 : Mr.R.Hashwanth ORDER The petitioner herein filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.16,85,258/ together with compound interest at three times the bank rate notified by RBI. 2. The 2nd respondent herein approached the 1st respondent by filing an application under Section 18(1) of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act hereinafter referred as MSMED Act, 2006 against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.16,85,258/ ( Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Two hundred and Fifty Eight only) together with interest. The 2 nd respondent is engaged in the business of manufacturing Pharmaceutical formulations. It was the specific case of the 2 nd respondent that above said sum payable to it was not received from the petitioner. 2/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.22059 of 2023 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent on the ground that the 1st respondent failed to follow the step by step procedure contemplated under Section 18 of MSMED Act, 2006 and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. It is the specific case of the petitioner that 1st respondent has not attempted conciliation and terminated the same in the manner known to law and therefore, without fulfilling the step under Section 18(2) of MSMED Act, 2006, the 1 st respondent ought not to have proceeded under Section 18(3) of MSMED Act, 2006 and passed the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the 1st respondent initially attempted the conciliation between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. When there was no consensus between the parties, the conciliation was terminated and the arbitration proceedings were initiated. After giving sufficient opportunity to both the parties, the award was passed by the 1st respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to mov
1. M/S Bohra Industries Resources Pvt. Ltd. Through its Managing Director Sh. Suresh Bohra, M55, 3rd Floor, MBlock Market, Greater KailashII, New Delhi110 048. II Address: T24, 1st Floor, Okhla PhaseII, New Delhi110020. ........Defendant no.1 2. Sh. Suresh Bohra Director & Authorised Representative M/s Bohra Industrial Resources Pvt. Ltd. M55, 3rd Floor, MBlock Market, Greater KailashII, New Delhi110 048. ........Defendant no.2 Through: Mr. Rohit Bohra and Mr. Neeraj Kumar, advocates Raj Kumar Tripathi Date of filing of suit : 13.07.2023 Digitally signed by Raj Kumar Arguments heard on : 17.12.2024 and 05.03.2025 Tripathi Date: 2025.04.02 11:26:31 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.790/2023 (M/s Syndicate Cloth House Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Bohra Industries Resources Pvt. Ltd.) Page 1 of 19 Date of Judgment : 02.04.2025 JUDGMENT: 1.1 Plaintiff has filed the instant suit against defendants for seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.27,14,111.28 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Fourteen Thousand One Hundred Eleven and twenty eight paise only) (Principal amount Rs.19,73,899.28 + Interest Rs.7,40,212/) along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum and cost of the suit. Brief facts of the case: 2.1 Plaintiff, a company duly incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956 registered as MSME unit with Ministry of Micro Small & Medium Enterprises, Government of India, is engaged in business of manufacturing & trading textiles. 2.2 Plaintiff filed the present suit through its Director Mr. Aman Gupta, who has been authorized by Board of Directors vide Resolution dated 02.12.2022 (AnnexureB) to sign, verify the pleadings and do all the necessary acts and deeds in the present suit on behalf of plaintiff company. 2.3 Defendant no.1 company is also registered as MSME Unit with Ministry of Micro Small & Medium Enterprises. Defendant no.2, being the Managing Director and authorized representative of defendant no.1, has been actively Raj dealing with plaintiff during its business with defendant no.1. Kumar 2.4 Case of plaintiff is that defendant no.1 through its Tripathi Digitally signed by Authorised Representative Sh.Suresh Bohra, approached the Raj Kumar Tripathi plaintiff during its business, at its office at Delhi and placed an Date: 2025.04.02 11:26:55 +0530 CS (COMM.) No.790/2023 (M/s Syndicate Cloth House Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Bohra Industries Resources Pvt. Ltd.)
Jabalpur, Dated : 21.11.2019. Mr. Sanjay Lal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Abhijeet Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent. This appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the revenue against the orderdated 15.12.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur in ITA Nos.175 & 177/JAB/2004, has been admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether COD's approval is mandatory in cases where assessee is not PSU but DDOs who are disbursing the payments to the employees and contractors are forced to deduct tax as per provisions of Chapter XVIIB of the Act." Counsel for the parties submitted that a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act was filed before the Tribunal, where the order impugned against which substantial question of law has been framed has been recalled by the Tribunal. In view of the above, it was not disputed that the present appeal has been rendered infructuous. A prayer was made that it may be disposed of as such. Ordered accordingly. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ( VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA ) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Digitally signed Aks/ by ANIL KUMAR S Date: 2019.11.25 15:56:54 +05'30'
Delhi High Court M/S Advance Stimul vs Gail (India) Limited on 10 April, 2024 $~ * Reserved on: 27th February, 2024 Date of decision: 10th April, 2024 + ARB.P. 13/2024 M/S ADVANCE STIMUL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhay Raj Varma, Mr. Arjun Rekhi & Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Advs., Advs. (M. 9899404819) versus GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kapil Sankhla, Mr. Akhilesh Aggarwal, Ms. Fagun Sharma, Mr. Hanish Phogat, Ms. Suvarna Kashyap & Mr. Gopesh Jindal, Advs. (M: 8447322322) JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J. 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. Background 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, 'the Arbitration Act') by the Petitioner M/s. Advance Stimul, a consortium of M/s. PKP Stimul as the leader and M/s. Advance Steel Tubes Ltd. as its member. The Petitioner and Respondent GAIL (India) Limited, had entered into an agreement dated 14th October, 2011 for pipeline laying and associated works for Lingala Kaikaluru isolated field grid with KGBasin Pipeline network from Hanuman Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ARB.P. 13/2024 Page 1 of 18 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:10.04.2024 21:13 Junction to VCL Project (hereinafter, 'subject work'). The Petitioner emerged as the lowest bidder and the contract was executed on 17th November, 2011. The Letter of Acceptance dated 9th February, 2012 in favour of the Petitioner was issued by the Respondent, for the subject work estimated at contract value of Rs. 13,84,14,983/. The agreed date of completion for the subject work was 13th April, 2012. However, further extensions were sought and subsequently provided, due to delays. Eventually, the subject work is stated to have been concluded sometime in March 2016. 3. During the execution of the subject work, as per the Petitioner various amounts became due and payable, as set out below: • Rs. 1,71,13,848/ on account of extra work, • Rs. 4,80,00,000/ as Extended Stay Compensation, • Rs. 5,00,00,000/ for extra costs incurred due to the Respondent's failure to obtain necessary permissions timely, and • Rs. 20,68,250/ as financial costs resulting from extensions of the Bank Guarantee. 4. The case of the Petitioner is that it sent a letter in which it raised a grievance that the Respondent was illegally withholding the Bank guarantee, given as a performance guarantee in favour of Respondent under the contract. However, the RespondentGAIL re
Delhi High Court Bharat Heavy Electricals ... vs Bhatia Engineering Company on 18 July, 2022 $~1 * % Date of Decision: 18.07.2022 + FAO (COMM) 117/2021 BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED (BHEL) ..... Appellant Through: Mr Ashim Vachher and Mr Vaibhav Dabas, Advocates. versus BHATIA ENGINEERING COMPANY ..... Respondent Through: Dr Amit George, Mr Swaroop George, Mr P. Harold, Mr Amol Acharya, Mr Rayadurgam Bharat and Mr Arkaneil Bhaumik, Advocates. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (ORAL) CM No. 34754/2021 1. This is an application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. 2. Dr Amit George, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, fairly states that in view of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3/2020: Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, the limitation stands condoned and he is not opposing the present application. 3. In view of the above, the application is allowed. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:22.07.2022 FAO (COMM) 117/2021 Page 1 of 10 FAO (COMM) 117/2021 and CM Nos. 22615/2021, 22616/2021 & 31776/2021 4. Issue notice. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent accepts notice. 6. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 16.12.2019 (hereafter 'the impugned order') passed by the learned Commercial Court in Arb. No. 21058/2016 captioned "M/s Bhatia Engineering Company v. M/s BHEL India". 7. By the impugned order, the learned Commercial Court has allowed the respondent's application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the A&C Act') and set aside the arbitral award dated 29.06.2016 (hereafter 'the impugned award') rendered by an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator (hereafter 'the Arbitral Tribunal'). 8. The dispute between the parties relates to payment of three items supplied by the respondent to the appellant. The appellant had placed Purchase Orders upon the respondent for supply of three totally different independent items Y Strainers, Duplex Strainers and Conical Strainers for its Bhilai Project by a Purchase Order No. PW:PE:MMPGII:BHL:P380/06 dated 20.03.2007 for Duplex Strainers and Conical Strainers and Purchase Order No. PW:PE:MM PGII.BHL:P381/06 dated 13.03.2007 for Y Strainers in March 2007. 9. The respondent had raised invoices for supply of the said items. The appellant had made certain payments against the said invoices; Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:22.07.2022 FAO (COMM) 117/2021 Page 2 of 10 however, the same were not for the entire amount. In addition, the respondent claimed that the payments were delayed. The respondent claimed that it had followed up with the appellant for release of the balance payments; however, the appellant had failed and neglec