abhinavdread/msme-legal-dispute-classification-dataset huggingface dataset:
Delhi High Court Ashima Goyal vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr. on 28 March, 2023 2023:DHC:2371 * + W.P.(C) 3953/2023 and CM APPL. 15419/2023 Date of Decision: 28.03.2023 IN THE MATTER OF: ASHIMA GOYAL Proprietor M/s B.B. Enterprises B49, CC Colony, New Delhi 110007 Email: [email protected] ..... PETITIONER Through: Mr. A.K. Singh, Mr. Shivam Garg and Mr. Tanuj Gulati, Advocates. versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Sansad Marg, New Delhi Through Regional Director Email: CRPC@)rbi.com ..... RESPONDENT NO.1 CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT &FINANCE CO. LTD. 1st & 2nd Floor, Plot No.6, Main PUSA Road Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005 Through Regional Manager/Auth. Representative Email: [email protected] ......RESPONDENT NO.2 Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Mr. Sushant Bali, Mr. Kunal Mittal and Mr. Saurabh Tanwar, Advocates for R2. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 15420/2023(for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:06.04.2023 13:48:23 2 2. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 3953/2023 and CM APPL. 15419/2023 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "(i) direct respondent no. 1 in exercise its power U/s 45 (JA) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 to require respondent no. 2 to adhere to NPA norms applicable to MSME loan account, before deciding nonperforming assets (NPA) in face of its Covid19 pandemic directives and regulatory package directed to be drawn in accordance with Hon'ble Apex Court judgment circulated vide its circular dated 07.04.2021 (AnnexureG) (ii) Setaside/quash respondent no.2's order dated 16.06.2021 (AnnexureI) being nonspeaking non reasoned and in violation, disregard to respondent no.1's directives applicable to MSMEs sector; (iii) direct respondent no. 2 to draw One Time Settlement in respect to petitioner loan account by enabling petitioner to deposit the same considering petitioner's property valued to be substantially & significantly much more than amount recoverable by respondent no.2 and payable by petitioner in its loan account. (iv) setaside/quash respondent no. 2's order dated 10.03.2023 (AnnexureP) delivered on 15.03.2023 as non speaking, nonreasoned made without considering the petitioner's representation alongwith directing respondent no. 2 to produce statement of account pertaining to petitioner a MSME term loan account No. XOHEELD00003123193 taken aid for passing said order
Course Ring Road, Rajkot360 Colony, Rajkot360 001 001 थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ADRPT 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent) CO. No. 01&02/RJT/2023 (a/o ITA No.134 & 135/Rjt/2023) (िनधारण वष/Assessment Year: (200708 & 200809) Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai The Income Tax Officer, Ward Thavrani, 4 Parsana Nagar, Shri 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, 5th Floor, Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Room No. 517, Race Course Ring Colony, Rajkot360 001 Vs. Road, Rajkot360001 थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ADRPT 5807 E (Applicant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 16/RJT/2019 (िनधारणवष / Assessment Year: (201011) Damjibhai Lekharj Tharvani Income Tax Officer, Ward C/o. Sarda & Sarda, CAs, 1st Floor, 1(2)(4), Aaykar Bhavan, 5th Vs. Floor, Room No. 506, Race "Sakar" Opp. Rajkumar College, Dr. Course Ring Road, Rajkot Radhakrishnan Road, Rajkot360 001 1 1. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA 2. DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI Rajkot 360001 360 001 थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEYPT 7701 B (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 31,32,33/RJT/2019 (िनधारण वष / Assessment Year: (200910 to 201112) Incometax Officer, Ward2, Shree Damjibhai Lekhraj Thavrani, Junagadh Incometax Office, 302Sai Darsan Apartment, Bhutnath Chambers, Opp. Vs. Adarshnagar2, Joshipura, Bahauddin College, College Junagadh362 001 Road, Junagadh 362 001 थायीलेखास.ं /जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AEYPT 7701 B (Appellant) (Respondent) CO. No. 02 to 04/RJT/2019 (a/o ITA Nos.31 to 33/RJT/2019) (िनधारण वष / Assessment Years: (200910 to 201112) Shree Damjibhai Lekhraj Thavrani, Incometax Officer, Ward2, 302Sai Darsan Apartment, Junagadh Incometax Office, Adarshnagar2, Joshipura, Bhutnath Chambers, Opp. Junagadh362 001 Vs. Bahauddin College, College Road, Junagadh 362 001 थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEYPT 7701 B (Applicant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील स.ं /ITA No. 171/RJT/2015 (िनधारण वष/Assessment Year: (200607) Bharatkumar Ishwarbhai Asstt. Commissioner of Bhatiya 301, UVI Palace, Vs. Income Tax Central Circle Wing 1, Opp. Gitanjali 1, Rajkot College, Sadhu Vasvani 2 1. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA 2. DHAMJIBHAI & KHIRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THALVANI Road, Rajkot थायी ले खा सं /.जीआइ आर सं / .PAN/GIR No.: AIRPB 2097 F (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) आ.(खो और ज).सं./IT(SS)A No. 01 to 06 /Rjt/2018 (िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: (200708 to 201213) Bharatkumar Ishwarbhai Asstt. Commissioner of Bhatiya Income Tax Central Circle Vs. 1, Rajkot 301, UVI Palace, Wing 1, Opp. Gitanjali College, Sadhu Vasvani Road, Rajkot 360 001 थायी ले खा सं /.जी आइ आर सं /.PAN/GIR No.: AIRPB 2097 F (अपील
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.,Chennai vs Dcit, Central Circle3(3), Chennai on 26 September, 2025 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, 'ए' यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद एवं ी एस.आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद के सम BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.1178 to 1182/Chny/2025 िनधा रणवष /Assessment Years: 201718 to 202122 M/s. Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., v. The DCIT, Old No.6869, NSC Bose Road, Central Circle3(3), Sowcarpet, Chennai. Chennai600 001. [PAN: AAFCM 9906 M] (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.1393 to 1397/Chny/2025 िनधा रणवष /Assessment Years: 201718 to 202122 The DCIT, v. M/s. Mohanlal Central Circle3(3), Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. Old No.6869, NSC Bose Road, Sowcarpet, Chennai600 001. [PAN: AAFCM 9906 M] (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) Assessee by : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate Department by : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 05.08.2025 घोषणा क तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 ITA Nos.1178 to 1182/Chny/2025 & ITA Nos.1393 to 1397/Chny/2025 (AYs:: 201718 2017 to 202122) M/s. Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd ::2 :: आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, VARKEY JM: These cross appeals by the Revenue and the assessee ssessee arise out of the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 20, Chennai [in short 'ld. CIT(A)'] all dated 24.02.2025 against the orders passed by the Dy. CIT, Central Circle3(3), Circle Chennai [in short 'the AO'] for the Assessment Years [in short 'AYs'] 201718 to 202122 22. Since several issues involved are common, all the appeals for all the assessment years were heard together. Both the parties also argued them together raising similar arguments on these issues. Accordingly, for the sake of convenience and brevity, we dispose all the appeals by this consolidated order. 2. ts in brief are that, the assessee is a private limited company The facts which is engaged in the business of manufacture and wholesale trading of gold bullion & gold jewellery. The assessee also provides making/jobwork making/job services to its customers. A search action u/s s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was conducted on the assessee, its director(s) and others, others on 10.11.2020 in the course of which several material & electronic data was found & seized and statement(s) of key person(s) were recorded. Subsequent thereto, the AO issued notice(s) u/s 153A of the Act on 30.08.2021 and the details of income ITA Nos.1178 to 1182/Chny/2025 & ITA Nos.1393 to 1397/Chny/2025 (AYs:: 201718 2017 to 202122) M/s. Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd ::3 :: returned by the assessee in response to the said notice(s) for the AYs in question, are noted to be as under: under: Asst Year Return Amount (in Rs.) 201718 153A 4,37,68,120 201819 153A
Digitally signed ILLA by ILLA RAWAT Date: RAWAT 2024.09.26 15:46:23 +0530 SUIT FOR RECOVERY JUDGMENT 1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose off the suit for recovery of Rs. 6,10,751/ alongwith interest filed by plaintiff against the defendant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff bank is a body corporate constituted under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisitions & Transfer of Undertaking Act, 40 of 1970) and is having its head office at Bangalore and one of its branch office at Gole Market, New Delhi. The present suit has been instituted through Shri Arun Kumar, its Branch Manager, who has been duly authorized by way of General Power of Attorney and is hence stated to be competent to sign and verify the plaint and to institute the present suit on behalf of plaintiff. 3. It is further averred in the plaint that defendant had approached the plaintiff bank for the loan facility under the following accounts: S.No. Details of Loan Amount (Rs.) (i) Over Draft Cash Credit (OCC) 4,75,000/ (A/c no. 0270261002488) (ii) Guaranteed Emergency Credit Loan 88,000/ (GECLWCTL) (Covid Loan) (A/c no. 0270755000011) TOTAL 5,63,000/ 4. It is further averred that the OCC Limit was sanctioned in the year 2019 and was renewed on 22.12.2020. CS (COMM) No.2459/2022 Canara Bank Vs. M/s Scented Season Page No. 2 / 18 Digitally signed ILLA by ILLA RAWAT Date: RAWAT 2024.09.26 15:46:24 +0530 Further, defendant was also sanctioned Covid loan on 15.07.2020. The said loan facility was to be returned by the defendant to the plaintiff bank as per the loan agreement executed between the parties. 5. It is further averred that after availing loan facilities, the defendant failed to repay the due amount and to maintain financial discipline, as a result the loan accounts of defendant became persistently irregular. It is further averred that as per the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff bank, a sum of Rs.6,10,751/ was due and outstanding as on 15.07.2022. The plaintiff bank reminded the defendant time and again to deposit the said amount but with no avail and ultimately the account of the defendant was declared to be NonPerforming Assets (NPA) on 04.01.2022. Since defendant failed to update his loan accounts, the plaintiff bank issued a legal notice, but the same was neither replied to nor acted upon by defendant. Hence, plaintiff bank has instituted the instant suit for recovery of Rs.6,10,751/ along with pendente lite and future interest @ 9.80% w.e.f. 15.07.2022 with monthly rests, from date of filing of the suit till realization of the decreetal amount. 6. The defendant has contested the suit by fi
Delhi High Court Shakuntala Devi & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 23 December, 2024 $~ * + CONT.CAS(C) 647/2024 VISHWAJEET SINGH AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Shreya Garg, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Ms. Suman Gupta and Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocates (M:9811129304) versus SH SUBHASISH PANDA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Deepika V. Marwaha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Standing Counsel, Mr. Nakul Ahuja, Panel Counsel, Mr. Tanishq Sharma, Mr. Akshay Pratap Singh, Advocates for DDA (M:9953992233) Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Hridyanshi Sharma, Advocate for UOI (M:9811199806) Ms. Puja Kalra, Standing Counsel with Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate for MCD (M:9312839323) + W.P.(C) 14960/2023 & CM APPL. 59755/2023, CM APPL. 67355/2023, CM APPL. 22037/2024 VISHWAJEET SINGH AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Shreya Garg, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Ms. Suman Gupta, and Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocates (M:9811129304) Signature Not Verified CONT.CAS(C) 647/2024 & other connected matters Page 1 of 145 Digitally Signed By:AMAN UNIYAL Signing Date:23.12.2024 18:59:08 versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Deepika V. Marwaha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Standing Counsel, Mr. Nakul Ahuja, Panel Counsel, Mr. Tanishq Sharma, Mr. Akshay Pratap Singh, Advocates for DDA (M:9953992233) Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Sarvan Kumar, Advocate for UOI (M:9910483635) Ms. Puja Kalra, Standing Counsel with Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate for MCD (M:9312839323) Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Advocate for
Bombay High Court Pradyuman Kumar Sharma vs Shri Jaysagar M. Sancheti on 14 March, 2013 .. 1 .. ARBP300303/12 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.300 OF 2012 WITH ARBITRATION PETITION NO.301 OF 2012 WITH ARBITRATION PETITION NO.302 OF 2012 WITH ARBITRATION PETITION NO.303 OF 2012 1. PRADYUMAN KUMAR SHARMA Aged about 56 years, Indian Hindu inhabitant of Delhi, Occupation : Business, carrying on business as a proprietor under the name and style of " M/S KUBER BUILDERS', having office and residence at "Kuber House", S32, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi. 2. KUBER PLANTERS LIMITED, a company Incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered office at New Delhi (the property known as Kuber Classique Belongs to this company) ... Petitioners. V/s. 1. SHRI JAYSAGAR M. SANCHETI, 2. MISS SANGITA JAYSAGAR SNACHETI, AND 3. SHRI RAHUL CHINSUSH SANCHETI, All adult Indian Hindu Inhabitants of Mumbai, residing at Flat No.703, "Vainganga" Building, Worli Sagar Asmita 1/39 ::: Downloaded on 09/06/2013 19:44:44 ::: .. 2 .. ARBP300303/12 Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Sir Pochkhanwal Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 025. ... Respondents. Mr Anil Anturkar a/w Amit Sale a/w Ms Kalyani T. & Deepak Kapoor i/b Sarang S. Ardhye for Petitioners. Mr Shrihari G. Aney, Senior Advocate a/w Kirit Hakani and Rahul Hakani i/b M/s P.V.Nelson Rajan & Rahul Hakani for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : R.D.DHANUKA, J. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 11, 2013. JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : MARCH 14, 2013. COMMON JUDGMENT : By these petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & conciliation Act, 1996 (for short herein after 'the Act'), the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned awards all dated 30th March 2009 declared by the learned arbitrator. 2. By consent of parties, in view of the identical facts in all the four matters and common argument advanced by both the parties, all aforesaid petitions were clubbed and heard together finally at the stage of admission and are being disposed off by common order. I shall summarise the facts in Asmita 2/39 ::: Downloaded on 09/06/2013 19:44:44 ::: .. 3 .. ARBP300303/12 arbitration petition No.300 of 2012 which were referred by both the parties. 3. The petitioner has advanced submissions only on three issues though various grounds are raised in the petition
Date of Institution of the case 04.09.2003 Grounds Under section 14(1)(b) of DRC Act Date of Judgment 16.10.2025 Decision Eviction petition is allowed JUDGMENT The present judgement shall decide a eviction petition instituted by the petitioners for eviction of the respondents from the tenanted premises on the grounds of subletting filed under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act). Petition 1. Briefly stated, the petitioners' case is that the petitioners are the owners/landlords of entire basement forming part of property No. 2/6, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as tenanted premises) and more specifically as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition. It is further stated that the tenanted premises were let out to respondent No.1 which is a private limited company. However, respondent No.1 has illegally sublet and parted with the possession of the tenanted premises to respondent No. 2 who is in occupation of the said premises to the exclusion of respondent No.1. It is stated that the landlordtenant relationship between petitioner and respondent No.1 is not in dispute as the said respondent No.1 had paid rent upto 31.08.2000 through cross cheques. It is stated that the sub letting has been done by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 RC ARC No. 442/2025 Kiran Mehra & Ors. Vs. M/s Hooghly Ink Co. (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page of 2 of 13 which is a separate and distinct company without the consent in writing of the petitioners/landlords. It is also stated that a legal notice dated 22.05.2003 was also served upon respondent No.1 in this regard. Hence, it is prayed that an eviction order may be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. Written Statement 2. Summons for settlement of issues of this petition were served upon the respondents in pursuance of order dated 04.09.2003. However, no written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No.1 despite service. Therefore, respondent No.1 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 24.11.2003. 3. Respondent No. 2 entered appearance on 17.03.2004 and filed its written statement on 01.06.2004, wherein, it contested the present proceedings. It is alleged by the respondent No.2 that respondent No.2 is not a subtenant but a direct tenant under the petitioner. It is stated that there is no question of respondent No.1 occupying the premises, since it is respondent No.2 who is tenant and in possession of the premises. It is also stated that respondent No.2 was inducted as tenant by petitioner No.1. Further, it is stated that respondent No.2 had duly replied to the false allegations made in notice dated 22.05.2003 through reply dated 15.09.2003. It is also stated that the petitioners have accepted the rent through cheques from respondent No.2 and also received the rent in cash from respondent No.2 and therefore, now cannot assert to the contrary. Hence, it is RC ARC No. 442/2025 Kiran Mehra & Ors. Vs. M/s Hooghly Ink Co. (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Page of 3
Digitally signed by 1) Micro And Small Enterprise Facilitation Council SHRADDHA SHRADDHA KAMLESH KAMLESH TALEKAR TALEKAR Through Member Secretary Date: 2025.09.30 15:55:10 +0530 2) Sikco Engineering Services Through Proprietor Archana Sikder and Power Of Attorney Milton Sikder ...Respondents Mr. Rohan Savant a/w Rakesh Agrawal, Sandeep Nirban, Pallak Ranawat, for Petitioner. Mr. Satish Nikhar, for Respondents. CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. Reserved on : August 26, 2025 Pronounced on : September 30, 2025 Judgment: Context and Background: 1. This Petition is a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act"), challenging an arbitral award dated December 30, 2022 ("Impugned Award") passed by the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, Page 1 of 17 September 30, 2025 ::: Uploaded on 30/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on 30/09/2025 21:47:33 ::: CARBPL113892023.docx 2006 ("MSMED Act"). 2. The Petitioner, Nexus Infratech ("Nexus") is itself an enterprise that would otherwise be a protectee of the MSMED Act. Nexus was awarded the work of installation, testing and commissioning of a 2300 KWP grid connected photovoltaic power plant at the Naval Station, Karanja, Uran. Nexus won the bid with the lowest quote at Rs. ~14.75 crores. The project was to be completed within nine months. A contract dated July 4, 2018 was executed between Nexus and the Chief Engineer, Military Engineering Services. 3. The Respondent, SIKCO Engineering Services Ltd. ("SESL") and Nexus entered into an agreement dated September 18, 2018 (" Agreement"), which was a backtoback contract for setting up the project. The work under the Agreement between the parties commenced on September 17, 2018 and the targeted date of completion was April 16, 2019. The purchase order from Nexus on SESL was for an amount of Rs. ~12.35 crores. 4. Nexus is said to have terminated the work order and purchase orders by a letter dated August 26, 2019 (" Termination Notice"), on the premise of noncompletion of work by SESL within the stipulated deadline. Page 2 of 17 September 30, 2025 Shraddha ::: Uploaded on 30/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on 30/09/2025 21:47:33 ::: CARBPL113892023.docx According to Nexus, a sum of Rs. ~8.08 crores has been paid. SESL acknowledges receipt of Rs. ~8.06 crores. The dispute between the parties relates to SESL's contention that its invoices for supplies made and work carried out have not been fully honoured by Nexus. 5. Disputes between the parties proceeded to the Facilitation Council and after conciliation failed, arbitration commenced. The Impugned Award zeroes in on three out of 22 invoices raised between January 12, 2019 and August 20, 2019, aggregating to Rs. ~11.66 crores, and holds that Rs. ~2.05 crores remains payable along with interest computed under the MSMED Act.
Madras High Court L&W Building Solutions P Ltd vs Micro And Small Enterprises ... on 6 June, 2023 1 DATED : 06.06.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH W.P No.3046 of 2023 and WMP No.3134 of 2023 L&W Building solutions P Ltd No.801, 8th Floor, Pride Hulkul, No.116, Lalbagh Road, Bangalore – 560 027 ..Petitioner vs. 1. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Coimbatore Region, No.2, Raja Street, Coimbatore – 641 001. 2. M/s.Kaveri Irrigations 102, Gomukhi Point, E.B. Complex Back side, Collectorate Post .. 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 in MSEFC/CBER /67/2021 online Application No.TN07E0037067/S/00001 on the files of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Coimbatore Region and quash the order dated 08.06.2022 (Impugned order) and the proceedings initiated forthwith. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Diwaagar For Respondents : Dr.C.Paranthaman for R2 ORDER The proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 08.06.2022 has been put to challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The 2nd respondent had offered certain work orders for supply and installation of irrigation system for the projects that were handled by the petitioner. According to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner did not pay the amount that was due and payable to the tune of Rs.26,00,000/ inspite of completion of the obligation on the part of the 2nd respondent. Hence, the 2nd respondent filed a reference before the 1st respondent under Section 18(1) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (herein after called as the MSMED Act), for the recovery of the sum of Rs.26,00,000/ along with interest. 3. The further case of the petitioner is that immediately after the notice was issued to the petitioner, the objections were filed. Apart from raising certain grounds on merits, the petitioner https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 also raised the ground of jurisdiction by taking a stand that the 2nd respondent was not registered under the MSMED Act as on the date of entering into the contract and hence, the 2nd respondent is not entitled for the benefit under Section 18 of the Act. 4. An attempt was made to amicably settle the dispute between the parties but however the conciliation failed. Through the impugned proceedings dated 08.06.2022, the 1st respondent recorded the failure of the conciliation and referred both the parties for arbitration before the Madras High Court Arbitration Center. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 5. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. Apart from dealing with the various contentions on merits that were raised by the petitioner, insofar as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned, the 2nd respondent has taken a stand in the counter to the effect that the contract involved the supply, installation and maintenance and in all the work orders, the period of maintenance ends only in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis