<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (4) TMI 58 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420392</link>
    <description>A consulting agreement executed before MSME registration did not attract the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 for that contract. The statutory scheme under Section 2(n) read with Section 8 requires the supplier to be a micro or small enterprise that has filed the prescribed memorandum, and that condition was not satisfied on the contract date. Because the agreement was signed before registration, the Council could not assume jurisdiction under Section 18, even though the contract stated that Indian law would govern the parties&#039; rights. The challenge to the High Court&#039;s decision therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 15:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=674728" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (4) TMI 58 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420392</link>
      <description>A consulting agreement executed before MSME registration did not attract the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 for that contract. The statutory scheme under Section 2(n) read with Section 8 requires the supplier to be a micro or small enterprise that has filed the prescribed memorandum, and that condition was not satisfied on the contract date. Because the agreement was signed before registration, the Council could not assume jurisdiction under Section 18, even though the contract stated that Indian law would govern the parties&#039; rights. The challenge to the High Court&#039;s decision therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420392</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>