sentence-transformers How to use Tejasw1/votum-case-law-v1 with sentence-transformers:
from sentence_transformers import SentenceTransformer
model = SentenceTransformer("Tejasw1/votum-case-law-v1", trust_remote_code=True)
sentences = [
"In what circumstances can the permission to pay turnover tax under Section 7 of the KGST Act be challenged or rectified?",
"**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**\n\n* **Amalgamation of LLPs:** The case revolves around the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation of two Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs), Alps Trade Com LLP (Transferee) and Lubstor Trade Com LLP (Transferor), under Section 60-62 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008.\n* **Approval of Scheme:** The main legal issue is the Tribunal's approval of the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation, which involves the transfer of assets, liabilities, and rights of the Transferor LLP to the Transferee LLP.\n* **Compliance with LLP Act:** The court considered the compliance of the LLPs with the provisions of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, including the requirement for consent from partners, creditors, and other stakeholders.\n\n**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**\n\n* The Transferee LLP, Alps Trade Com LLP, has 4 partners, and the Transferor LLP, Lubstor Trade Com LLP, has 3 partners.\n* The Transferor LLP has NIL creditors, and the Transferee LLP has one major creditor, Yaduka Agrotech Private Limited, which has given its no objection to the proposed merger.\n* The Scheme of Amalgamation has been approved by the partners and creditors of both LLPs.\n* The Tribunal has dispensed with the requirement of holding separate meetings of partners and creditors of both LLPs.\n\n**3. Court's Ruling:**\n\n* The Tribunal has approved the Scheme of Amalgamation under Section 60-62 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008.\n* The Tribunal has dispensed with the requirement of holding separate meetings of partners and creditors of both LLPs.\n* The LLPs are required to serve notice to the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal, the Official Liquidator, and the Income-Tax Assessing Officer within 7 days from the date of the order.\n\n**4. Citations:**\n\n* **Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008** (Sections 60-62)",
"**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**\n\n* **Alternate Method of Taxation:** The case revolves around the applicability of the alternate method of taxation under Section 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.\n* **Section 7 of KGST Act:** The main legal issue is the interpretation of Section 7 of the KGST Act, which provides for payment of tax at a compounded rate.\n* **Assessment Year:** The court considered the issue of whether the amended provisions of the Kerala Finance Act, 2001, which came into effect from 23-7-2001, were applicable for Assessment Year 2001-2002.\n\n**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**\n\n* The appellant, M/s Varkisons Engineers, is a partnership firm with a crushing unit at Kadiyiruppu, Kolenchery, Ernakulam District.\n* The appellant opted to pay turnover tax under Section 7 of the KGST Act for Assessment Year 2001-2002.\n* The assessing authority granted permission to the appellant to pay tax under Section 7 on 9-4-2001.\n* The Finance Act, 2001, enhanced the rate per machine from Rs 30,000 to Rs 90,000 from 23-7-2001.\n* The appellant challenged the notice issued under Section 43 of the KGST Act seeking to rectify the permission/order dated 9-4-2001 and seeking an enhanced rate per machine with effect from 23-7-2001.\n\n**3. Court's Ruling:**\n\n* The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment dated 4-10-2007 and restored Original Petition No. 1501 of 2003 to the file of the Kerala High Court for de novo consideration.\n* The court held that the Surcharge Act, 1957, was not retrospective in operation and could not be regarded as law in force at the commencement of the year of Assessment 1957-1958.\n* The court also referred to the judgment of this Court in CIT v. Isthmian Steamship Lines, where it was held that the law to be applied is the law in force in the assessment year, unless otherwise stated or implied.\n* The civil appeal stands disposed of accordingly, with all contentions expressly kept open.\n\n**4. Citations:**\n\n* **State of Kerala v. Builders Assn. of India**, (1997) 2 SCC 183\n* **Mycon Construction Ltd. v. State of Karnataka**, (2003) 9 SCC 583\n* **Mathuram Agrawal v. State of M.P.**, (1999) 8 SCC 667\n* **Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala**, AIR 1966 SC 1385 : (1966) 60 ITR 262\n* **CST v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd.**, AIR 1961 SC 1047 : (1961) 2 SCR 189 : (1961) 12 STC 182",
"**1. Key Legal Issues and Holdings:**\n\n* **Existence of Dispute:** The main legal issue is whether there was an existence of dispute prior to the issuance of the Demand Notice dated 11.04.2019.\n* **Section 8 of IBC:** The court considered the application of Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which deals with the requirement of a dispute to be raised by the corporate debtor in response to a demand notice.\n* **Admissibility of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP):** The court's ruling affected the admissibility of the CIRP against the corporate debtor.\n\n**2. Significant Facts of the Case:**\n\n* The corporate debtor, Triumph Realty Pvt. Ltd., had a pre-existing dispute with the operational creditor, Tech India Engineers Pvt. Ltd.\n* The operational creditor issued a demand notice dated 11.04.2019, which was received by the corporate debtor on 16.04.2019.\n* The corporate debtor raised disputes through e-mails dated 04.10.2018, 01.11.2018, and 04.12.2018, among others.\n* The corporate debtor also pointed out discrepancies in the billed and actual executed work through e-mails dated 05.11.2018 and 29.04.2019.\n* The parties exchanged several e-mails and letters regarding the completion of the work and deficiency in services, indicating a pre-existing dispute.\n\n**3. Court's Ruling:**\n\n* The NCLAT (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal) allowed the appeal and set aside the Impugned Order dated 04.06.2020 passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority.\n* The court held that the corporate debtor had raised disputes prior to the issuance of the demand notice, making the initiation of the CIRP against the corporate debtor invalid.\n* The court quashed the steps taken in consequence of the Impugned Order and released the corporate debtor from the rigour of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.\n\n**4. Citations:**\n\n* **Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited** (2018) 1 SCC 353\n* **Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank** (2018) 1 SCC 407\n* **Vinod Mittal v. Rays Power Exports** (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 851/2019 dated 18.11.2019)\n* **Gajendra Parihar v. Devi Industrial Engineers** (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1370 of 2019 dated 18.03.2020)"
]
embeddings = model.encode(sentences)
similarities = model.similarity(embeddings, embeddings)
print(similarities.shape)
# [4, 4] 
