ARUN R. PEDNEKER
Sarojkumar Ramchandra Gonjari. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra Through Its Chief Secretary, Mumbai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Arun R. Pedneker, J.)
1. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned order (award) dated 02.02.2024, in case No.MH/04/ard/00100 for being in violation of the statutory law, for being patently illegal, invalid and against the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court to challenge the ‘Award’, contending that the award is ex-facie illegal and does not constitute an award within the meaning of and as contemplated under Section 18 of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for brevity “MSMED Act”) and, as such, submits that without invoking the remedy of appeal as is available under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the petitioner has approached this court invoking jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the said order as being patently illegal.
2. Facts as pleaded in the petition are briefly summarized as under:
A] The petitioner is a private limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act having it’s registered office at Gut No.1258/1259, Sanaswadi, Nagar Road, Pune.
B] The petitioner entered into a supplier agreeme
Raj Kumar Shivhare Vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement and Anr.
M/s. Tirupati Steels Vs. Shubh Industrial Component and Anr.
Thansingh Nathmal Vs. The Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri and others
SBP & Co. Vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. & Ors., (2005) 8 SCC 618
Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan and others
Bhaven Construction Vs. Execution Engineer Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and others
Deep Industries Limited Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and Ors.
Important Point : The court established that statutory remedies must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction against awards under the MSMED Act.
Orders by MSEFC failing to follow arbitration procedures under the MSMED Act are not valid awards, allowing for writ petitions under Article 226 due to natural justice violations.
The mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006 for challenging an award and the overriding effect of the MSMED Act, 2006 over the Arbitration Act, 1996 in specific disp....
The High Court cannot exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution against the awards or orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunals as it would defeat the object of minimi....
Jurisdictional challenges to arbitration awards must be raised under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, and the pre-deposit requirement under Section 19 of the MSME Act is mandatory.
Writ Jurisdiction – Access to High Courts by way of writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, is not just a constitutional right but also a part of basic structure – It is available t....
The Facilitation Council's failure to adhere to prescribed procedures in the MSMED Act renders its award a nullity, invalidating the requirement for challenge under the Arbitration Act.
The High Court cannot entertain writ petitions challenging awards of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council without the mandatory deposit of 75% of the awarded amount as per Section 19 ....
The High Court will not entertain a writ petition if an effective alternative remedy is available under the MSMED Act, emphasizing adherence to statutory procedures for grievance redressal.
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act arises as is evident from sub Section (6) of Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, which inter alia provides that the parties aggrieved by such an arbitral award may ma....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.