Back
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS
Steel Authority of India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Jharkhand Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, MSEFC Through Its Secretary – Respondent
ORDER :
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2 under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short “the MSMED Act, 2006”) before respondent No. 1 by which he has claimed for payment of extended balance of Rs. 2,47,10,093.63 plus accrued interest against contract dated 14.10.2016 towards enabling work of Coke Ovens Battery under rebuilding of Coke Ovens Battery 7 & 8 in Coke Ovens & Coal Chemical Department at Bhilai Steel Plant.
2. The brief facts as reflected from records are that work order was issued in favour of respondent No. 2 and as per the contract agreement, there is arbitration Clause in Article 9 of the work agreement. The Clause 9.1 of the Article clearly provides that any dispute differences, whatsoever arising between the parties out of or relating to the construction, meaning, scope, operation or effect of the contract shall be settled between the employers and contractors amicably and if they are not able to settle it will be settled through conciliation and if conciliation is failed through arbitration.
The MSMED Act, 2006 provides a specific dispute resolution mechanism that overrides private arbitration agreements, making writ petitions not maintainable when an alternative remedy exists.
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....
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....
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 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....
If any registration under the MSMED Act is obtained, the same will be prospective and would apply to supply of goods and services subsequent to registration but cannot operate retrospectively. Accord....
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
