Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Somasekhar Sundaresan
Larsen And Toubro Limited – Appellant
Versus
High Parra Construction Pvt Ltd – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to arbitral award under msmed act (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding delay and deposit requirements (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's verification of delay claims and receipt date (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. assessment of reasons for condonation of delay (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. judicial discretion and context in condonation of delay (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. public policy and legislative intent of msmed act (Para 25 , 26) |
| 7. conclusion on condonation of delay denied (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
Somasekhar Sundaresan, J.
Context and Background:
1. The captioned primary proceedings are essentially an application seeking to challenge an arbitral award dated March 3, 2018 (“Impugned Award”) passed by the MSME Facilitation Council, Mumbai (“MSME Council”) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”).
2. The Petitioner, Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (“L&T”) seeks to challenge payment of a princely sum of Rs.44,513/- awarded to the Respondent, High Parra Construction Pvt. Ltd. (“High Parra”) with interest thereon to be computed in terms of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (th
A party challenging an arbitral award under the MSMED Act must deposit 75% of the awarded amount, and courts will not condone delay unless sufficient cause is established.
The mandatory deposit requirement under Section 19 of the MSMED Act must be fulfilled before entertaining applications to set aside arbitration awards, ensuring fairness to MSMEs and compliance with ....
The court affirmed that failure to consider the MSMED Act's provisions on interest constitutes a significant error, leading to the setting aside of the arbitral award.
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.
Delay beyond 120 days (90+30) in Section 34 petitions or corresponding appeals under Section 37 of Arbitration Act not condonable via Limitation Act Section 5; negligence, inaction, lack of bonafides....
The court adopted a liberal and justice-oriented approach in the matter of condonation of delay, allowing the delay of 23 days to be condoned as sufficient cause was explained by the DDA.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the limitation to challenge an award continued during the COVID-19 pandemic, and there was no need to file an application for condonation of d....
An application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be entertained without the pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount as mandated by Section 19 of the MSMED Act.
EM-II filing discretionary for micro/small enterprises beyond 180 days; MSMED reference limitation starts from buyer's post-investigation denial, not supply date; narrow Section 34 scope upholds awar....
Arbitration - Commercial Transaction - Arbitral Award - Since objections to an Award are to be filed under S. 34 of A&C Act, S. 19 of MSMED Act qualifies filing of such objections by providing that n....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
