abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Rabindra Kumar Mintri & Ors ... Respondents Present: For Appellants: Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Ms. Priyanka Bhatt, Ms. Honey Satpal, Ms. Vaishnavi Prakash, Ms. Ritika Prasad, Mr. Rajeev Chowdhary, Ms. Nandini Choudha and Ms. Namrata Sarogi, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Anuja Pethia, Mr. Noor Shergill, Mr. Rishabh Govila and Ms. Diksha Dadu, Advocates for SRA. Mr. Apoorv Agarwal and Ms. Akshita Singh, Advocate for RP. Mr. Rachit Mittal, Mr. Parish Mishra and Mr. Adarsh Srivastava, Advocate for R2. With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 816 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2952 of 2024 (Arising out of Order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Principal Bench I.A. No.2518/2021 in (IB)923(PB)/2018) IN THE MATTER OF: Yashveer Singh ... Appellant Versus Rabindra Kumar Mintri & Ors ... Respondents Present: For Appellants: Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nipun Gautam, Ms. Udita Singh, Mr. Kshitij Wadhwa and Ms. Bani Brar, Advocates. Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 795, 816 & 817 of 2024 1 For Respondents: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Anuja Pethia, Mr. Noor Shergill, Mr. Rishabh Govila and Ms. Diksha Daddu, Advocates for SRA. Mr. Apoorv Agarwal and Ms. Akshita Singh, Advocate for RP. Mr. Rachit Mittal, Mr. Parish Mishra and Mr. Adarsh Srivastava, Advocate for R2. With Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 817 of 2024 & I.A. No. 2954 of 2024 (Arising out of Order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Principal Bench I.A. No.2518/2021 in (IB)923(PB)/2018) IN THE MATTER OF: Reena ... Appellant Versus Rabindra Kumar Mintri & Ors ... Respondents Present: For Appellants: Mr. Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nipun Gautam, Ms. Udita Singh, Mr. Kshitij Wadhwa and Ms. Bani Brar, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Ms. Anuja Pethia, Mr. Noor Shergill, Mr. Rishabh Govila and Ms. Diksha Daddu, Advocates for SRA. Mr. Apoorv Agarwal and Ms. Akshita Singh, Advocate for RP. Mr. Rachit Mittal, Mr. Parish Mishra and Mr. Adarsh Srivastava, Advocate for R2. JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. These three Appeal(s) have been filed against the same order dated 05.03.2024 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Principal Bench in IA No.2518/2021, IA No.3615/2022 and IA Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 795, 816 & 817 of 2024 2 No.4172/2022, by which order, all the aforesaid IAs were disposed of and with respect to other IAs, the Adjudicating Authority directed the same to be listed on 30.04.2024. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.03.2024, these Appeal(s) have been filed. 2. We may first notice the facts giving rise to these Appeal(s). Facts in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 795 of 2024 are noted first and facts in other two Appeal(s) shall be separately noticed: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 795 of 2024 (i) The Appellant claims to have paid consideration towards allotment of 50 flats in the Project of M/s Today Homes Noida Pvt. Ltd., i.e., 'Ridge Residency', Sec
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 19,09,821.89/ ALONGWITH INTEREST @ 15% PER ANNUM JUDGMENT 1. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff company for seeking recovery of Rs. 19,09,821/ alongwith interest @ 15% Per Annum. Plaintiff's case : 2. Case of the plaintiff as per plaint & evidence led is that it is a Limited Liability Partnership Firm engaged in the trade of readymade garments. Defendant is a partnership firm with defendant No. 2 and 3 are its partners also deals in the garments. In the course of business, defendant used to purchase goods from plaintiff on credit basis. In the course of business, goods were supplied on demand as per invoice and account was maintained qua the same. As per ledger, there is outstanding balance of Rs. 18,69,111/ on 12.05.2022. The dues were not cleared despite repeated demand. Plaintiff issued legal notice dated 09.04.2021 which was neither replied nor complied. Plaintiff approached the Shahdara, DLSA for 'Pre institution Mediation' under Section 12A of Commercial Court Act, 2015 but defendant did not participate the same and nonstarter report dated 28.02.2022 was issued. In this backdrop, the suit in hand was filed with following reliefs : Prayer : (a) Pass a decree of recovery in faovur of the plaintiff and against the defendants for the sum of Rs. 19,09,821.89/. (b) Award interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the said amount from the institution of the present suit till the actual date of realization. (c) Award cost of the suit with interest in favour of the plaintiff. (d) Award the litigation cost against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. 3. Summons of the suit was served upon the defendants and defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 entered their appearance on 17.10.2022. No WS was filed on behalf of defendant No. 3 and he was proceeded Exparte vide order CS No. 395/22 Ratna Textile Vs. M/s English Premium & Ors 2/14 dated 30.01.2023. Detailed Written statement was filed whereby allegation of the plaintiff were refused. Defendant's case : 4. Case of the defendant No. 1 and 2 as per written statement & evidence led is that case of the plaintiff based on false and frivolous ground. It is claimed that plaintiff did not not comply the Section 12A of Commercial Court Act as no notice was served upon them qua the same and concealment of material facts also pleaded. It is pleaded that defendant No. 2 Gaurav Dua was suffering from Cancer and that defendant No. 3 Vinit Kumar who have to be maternal brother of defendant No. 2 became partner in defendant No. 1 firm to help him in the business. Factum of business between plaintiff and defendants is admitted. As per WS, it was agreed between parties that plaintiff will supply the goods only after receiving advance payment. It is pleaded that no proof of delivery of goods has been filed on record. As per WS, business transaction cited through invoices were carried out during illness of defendant no. 2 and he has not placed any order with the plaintiff. It is pleaded that wrong activities were carried out by the defendant No. 3 during illness so as t
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 : Mon Jun 15 05:57:53 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
1. The State of Maharashtra, ] Through Public Prosecutor, ] Criminal Appellate Side, ] High Court, Bombay. ] ] 2. Mrs. Madhu Subhash Pandey, ] aged : 60 years, an adult Indian ] Inhabitant, residing at Flat No. 1503/ ] 1504, Bianca Towers, 15th Floor, ] Yari Road, Andheri (West), ] Mumbai 400 601. ] ...Respondents. Ms. Poonam Ankleshwarai for the applicant. Ms. T. F. Irani for respondent no. 2. Ms. Shilpa Gajare, APP for respondent no. 1. Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Reserved on : March 18, 2024 Pronounced on : March 28, 2024. Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final PatilSR (ch) 1 of 18 final Revn 267222.doc disposal with consent of the parties. 2. By this revision application, exception is taken to order of Appellate Court dated 22nd March, 2022 modifying Clause 4 of the order dated 22nd November 2021 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in an interim application filed under section 23 of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act [for short, "the DV Act"]. 3. Clause 4 of the trial Court's order and the modified Clause 4 and 4A of the Appellate Court's order reads thus: Clause (4) of the trial Court's order : "Respondent is hereby ordered that he shall not disturbed the possession of the applicant in the property of Anand Ashram, Gram Gauriya, Deeh Pratapgarh Road, Mungra, Badshapur, Johnpur (U.P.)" Clause (4) and Clause 4(a) of the Appellate Court's order : "(4) Respondent Mr. Subhash Ramunath Pandey is hereby ordered that, till the final adjudication of the C. C. No. 152/DV/2020, he shall not disturb the residential right of the Applicant Mrs. Madhu Subhash Pandey in the property of Anand Ashram, Gram Gauriya Deeh, Pratapgarh Road, Mungra, Badshahpur, Johnpur (UP), in the main part of the bungalow i.e. two bedrooms on ground floor of said bungalow, adjacent to master bedroom and the kitchen, kitchen and pooja room for common use. Those are shown in the map of the Trust Deed in PatilSR (ch) 2 of 18 final Revn 267222.doc black writing and red sketchpen marks made by Ld. Advocate for Respondent No. 2 which is kept at Exhibit X with the order and it be termed as a part of the order for convenience. He would also not restrict her to use two parkings and a servant quarter. He would not restrict her to use the hall for ingress and egress, except for sitting. He would not restrict her access to the generator room only for the purpose of electricity fac
Bombay High Court Nagar Panchayat Kaij Through Its Chief ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 17 July, 2025 2025:BHCAUG:18728 (1) 902wp84042025.odt BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8404 OF 2025 NAGAR PANCHAYAT KAIJ THROUGH ITS CHIEF OFFICER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... Mr. Hanumant P. Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. D. R. Korade, AGP for RespondentsState. ... CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 17th JULY, 2025. P.C.: 1. The present Writ Petition takes exception to Award dated 02.05.2024 passed by Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council Aurangabad, thereby directing petitioner to pay amount of Rs.23,23,768/ from the day it becomes to payable to respondent no.3 alongwith interest as per provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short 'MSMED Act, 2006'). 2. The aforesaid order appears to have been passed in Reference under Section 18 of MSMED Act, 2006. The remedy to challenge such Award is provided under Section 19 of MSMED Act, 2006. 3. In that view of the matter, present Writ Petition cannot be entertained. Hence, it is accordingly disposed of. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to take up appropriate alternate remedy as permissible under law. The time consumed in (2) 902wp84042025.odt prosecuting present Writ Petition shall be considered for computing limitation. All points are kept open. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/July2025
1. The Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Coimbatore Region, Represented by its Chairperson, Tmt.Sigy Thomas Vaidhyan 2, Raja Street, Coimbatore 641 001. 2. M/s.Unitech Couplers India Pvt Limited, 128/1, Vembadiyan Kovil Road, Arasur, Coimbatore 641 407. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent herein to refer the petitioner's application bearing reference No.UDYAM TN03004239/S/0001 dated 02.07.2021 to arbitration as per Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act 2006 within a time limit fixed by this Court. 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 03:42:11 pm ) W.P.No.4421 of 2025 For Petitioner : M/s.S.P.Sri Harini For R1 : Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, Government Advocate For R2 : M/s.M.V.Saranya ********* ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to refer the petitioner's application, bearing reference No. UDYAMTN03004239/S/0001, dated 02.07.2021, to arbitration as per Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, within a time frame fixed by this Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a 'micro manufacturing enterprise' registered under the MSMED Act and had entered into an agreement with the second respondent for the supply of "ED coating" services. With respect to the labour provided for these services from 2016 to 2020, the petitioner had periodically raised 293 invoices totaling Rs. 19,35,228/. However, the second respondent had paid only Rs. 11,08,654/, leaving an outstanding balance of Rs. 8,26,554/. Despite repeated reminders, the second respondent failed to make the balance payment. 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 03:42:11 pm ) W.P.No.4421 of 2025 3. The petitioner filed an application under Section 18(1) of the MSMED Act against the second respondent to recover the outstanding amount along with interest. The second respondent failed to submit its reply within the time limit specified by the first respondent and did not participate in the joint conciliation proceedings initiated under the MSMED Act. In the absence of any representation from the second respondent, the first respondent passed an order based on the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner, directing the second respondent to pay the principal amount of Rs. 8,26,554/.
Madras High Court S.Raman Pillai vs Union Of India Rep.By on 8 March, 2019 1 DATED : 08.03.2019 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P.No.5305 of 2018 S.Raman Pillai ... Petitioner vs. 1.Union of India rep.by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kanniyakumari Division, Nagercoil 629 001. 2.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai 600 001. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records and quash the order dated 13.01.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.1913 of 2014 and consequently, direct the first respondent not to recover any amount from petitioner towards subscription to New Pension Scheme besides declaring that petitioner's pension is governed by CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arun For R1 : Mr.V.Balasubramanian, SCGSC for Mr.A.Veeramani http://www.judis.nic.in 2 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M.VENUGOPAL,J.) Heard both sides. 2.According to the Petitioner, he was appointed as a 'Gramin Dak Sevak' on 20.08.1988. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of 'Postman' with effect from 25.08.2010. The Petitioner further states that Pension to the Employees of various Departments in Government of India was earlier governed by a single set of Rules, which were notified as CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. As per the said Rules, the Government of India assured each and every Employee of his right to receive a defined Pension, which would be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India. As a matter of fact, the Government of India vide its Gazette Notification in F.No.5/7/2003ECB&PR dated 22.12.2003 introduced a new set of Pension Rules, called as “New Pension Scheme”. 3.The stand of the Petitioner is that as per the 'New Pension Scheme', Pension was determined to an Employee by way of his contribution at the time of his service in place of the then existing defined Pension under Old Pension Scheme under CCS (Pension) Rules, http://www.judis.nic.in 3 1972. The 'New Pension Scheme' as notified on 22.12.2003, came into effect with effect from 01.01.2004 in respect of the Employees recruited by the Central Government on or after that date. When the Petitioner was granted promotion to the post of 'Postman', he thought that his service would be covered under the Old Defined Pension Scheme as notified under CCC (Pension) Rules, 1972. However, to his shock and dismay, the Department caused 10% recovery of his emoluments from his Basic pay + Dearness Allowance every month towards his contribution for 'New Pension Scheme' as if he was recruited as a 'new Entrant' in the Department for the first time on 25.08.2010. 4.It comes to be known that the Petitioner filed
1.Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Jaipur (Third), Office of Commissioner of Industries, Government of Rajasthan, Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan302 005. 2.M/s.Purma Plast Private Limited, Represented by Sri Raghuveer Sharma, B494, RIICO Industrial Area, Phase I, Bhiwadi, Alwar, Rajasthan. ... Respondents 1/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1792 of 2021 Prayer : Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order, dated 08.06.2021 made in W.P.No.12230 of 2021. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Gopinathan For R2 : Mr.Abishek Jenasenan JUDGMENT ************ [Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.DHANABAL, J.] This appeal has been preferred as against the order passed in W.P.No.12230 of 2021 wherein, the appellant herein has filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in Case No.RJ/02/S/RJS/00630 award, dated 17.03.2020 and quash the same. 2/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1792 of 2021 2. The writ petition was filed by this appellant challenging the award, dated 23.10.2019 passed against the petitioner by the Arbitral Tribunal, (i.e.,) Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council on the ground that the procedures under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act have not been followed and no notice was served to the petitioner for commencement of arbitral proceedings. Without serving notice, arbitral proceedings cannot be commenced and the averment of arbitrator itself has not been communicated to the petitioner and without giving opportunity to the petitioner, the ex parte award was passed by the Council. 3. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the sides dismissed the writ petition by holding that the very same award has been challenged by the same petitioner before this Court in O.P.No.443 of 2020 and the said OP was dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 10.12.2020 on the 3/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1792 of 2021 ground of delay in challenging the award and as against the same, O.S.A.No.101 of 2021 is preferred and the same is pending before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the writ petition
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Mr. Sanjib Mal, Mr. Bimalendu Das Ms. Shomrita Das ........ for the applicants in CAN 1110 of 2015 Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, Mr. Pingal Bhattacharyya .........for the opposite party/petitioner Sri Mal, Ld. Counsel appears for the respondents BPCL in the writ petition and in support of the application being CAN 1110 of 2015. Sri Debabrata Saha Roy, Ld. Counsel appears for the writ petitioner and for the respondents in CAN 1110 of 2015. The matter appears under the heading 'Applications' today and Sri Mal concentrates his submissions on CAN 1110 of 2015. Ld. Counsel for BPCL submits that the disputes between the parties is covered by the Arbitration Clause entered by and between the respondentsBPCL through its authorized signatory with the writ petitioner for grant of a retail 2 outlet dealership under the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category. The fundamental point canvassed by Sri Mal at the hearing is that in view of Clause 19 of the retail outlet dealership agreement dated 27th July, 2010 the dispute sought to be raised in the writ petition is subject to arbitration. Ld. Counsel, Sri Mal further submits by taking this Court to the prayers in the writ petition that the same pertains to granting the petitioner permission to induct a partner in the retail outlet allotted to him or, alternatively to grant the petitioner a Company Owned Company Operated (for short COCO) pump at Gopalpur, Hooghly instead of the present allotment at Chinpai, Birbhum District. Sri Mal argues that both reliefs as claimed in the writ petition can be the subject matter of arbitration between the parties in view of the Arbitration Clause (supra). Therefore, the writ petition is eligible to be dismissed as not maintainable. Next, taking this Court to page 59 of the writ petition Sri Mal submits that it has been, inter alia, intimated to the writ petitioner that his request for reconstitution of the ownership of the allotted retail outlet at Chinpai, Birbhum by inducting a partner can only be considered after sales have commenced from the said outlet. With further reference to page 59 of the writ petition, Sri Mal argues that it has been also intimated to 3 the writ petitioner that an amount of Rs. 9, 60, 086/ is outstanding towards the EMIs (equated monthly instalments) of the corpus fund loan Rs. 14, 32, 092/ given by BPCL in terms of the Corpus Fund Agreement entered by and between the parties dated 27th July, 2010. The petitioner was further intimated that in the event of nonoperation of the retail outlet at Chinpai, such act shall be considered to be in contravention of Clauses 10(b), 13 (v) and 13 (vi) of the Dispensing Pump and Selling License Agreement (for short DPSL Agreement). Thereafter taking this Court to the separate clauses of the DPSL Agreement as recorded above, Sri Mal points out that each of the respective clauses by which the parties have covenanted to promote the sale of the products of BPCL, to maint