Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Atul Shankar Mathur, Adv., Mrs. Priya Singh, Adv., Mr. Shubhankar, Adv., Mr. Sarvapriya Makkar, Adv., M/s. Khaitan & Co.
For the Respondent: Mr. K.M. Natraj, ASG, Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Sharath Nambair, Adv., Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, Adv., Mr. Annirudh Sharma (II), Adv., Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv., Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR, Mr. S. Muralidhar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Suresh Dhole, Adv., Ms. Pushpa Shinde, Adv., Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR, Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Adv., Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Adv., Dr. Ajay Kumar, Adv.

What is the requirement for challenging an award under the Act of 1996? What are the limitations on entertaining a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution to obviate compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 19? What is the interplay between Sections 16, 18, and 19 of the MSMED Act 2006 and Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996?

Key Points: - The main legal point is the requirement of complying with Section 19 of the MSMED Act for challenging an award under the Act of 1996 (!) . - There are limitations on entertaining petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution to avoid the pre-deposit requirement under Section 19 (!) . - The second respondent filed a claim before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, which decreed the claim (!) (!) . - The award was challenged in a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, which was initially allowed by a Single Judge but reversed by the Division Bench (!) (!) . - The Division Bench held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of specific remedies under the special statute, namely Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (!) . - Section 19 of the MSMED Act mandates the deposit of seventy-five percent of the award amount for an application to set aside an award to be entertained (!) (!) . - The remedy under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was available to the appellant but was not pursued (!) (!) . - Taking recourse to Articles 226/227 of the Constitution to avoid the pre-deposit requirement under Section 19 was impermissible (!) . - The Supreme Court affirmed the Division Bench's view that the writ petition was not maintainable (!) (!) (!) . - It was unnecessary for the High Court to enter into the merits of the controversy once it concluded the petition was not maintainable (!) .

What is the requirement for challenging an award under the Act of 1996?

What are the limitations on entertaining a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution to obviate compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 19?

What is the interplay between Sections 16, 18, and 19 of the MSMED Act 2006 and Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996?