Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
M/s M. R. Beltings and Ors. – Respondents
WPC No. 1765 of 2016
Decided On : 21-07-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. supply order details and delays (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's challenge on jurisdiction (Para 2) |
| 3. respondent's defense on maintainability (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. court's analysis on jurisdiction aspects (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. mandatory pre-deposit requirement (Para 7) |
| 6. court's conclusion on petitioner rights (Para 8 , 9) |
| 7. final order disposing of the petition (Para 10) |
ORDER :
(Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.)
The petitioner in his usual course of business has issued supply order to respondent No. 1 for supply of 5400 mtrs. of 1000 mm FR grade rubber conveyor belt on 18.05.2014. As per supply order, the respondent No. 1 was to complete the supply of entire material up to 02.08.2014 but the firm after expiration of time schedule given for each of supply, has supplied the material on 18.08.2014 and 14.09.2014 to the tune of 2443 mtrs. and balance quantity was required to be supplied to the tune of 2957 mtrs.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent was requested to supply the material within stipulated time period but the firm failed to supply the balance quantity of 2957 rubber belting despite the extension of the said delivery period but no supply was made. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 has made an application before respondent No. 2-Haryana Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council claiming the dues on 05.03.215 which was registered as Claim Application No. 48/2015. The petitioner raised objection and detailed reply was also filed and vide order dated 04.04.2016, respondent No. 2 appointed Shri C.B. Jagla, Retired District Judge, Gurgaon as Arbitrator. The petitioner has challenged these proceedings before this Court by filing present writ petition and has prayed for following reliefs:-
| i) | This Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside proceeding initiated by the Respondent No.2 under the provision of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and the respondents be restrained to exercise the jurisdiction under the Act of 2006 on the ground that it lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of the cause of action which was never accrued within the local limits of the respondent No.2 and also set aside the memo dated 4-4-2016 by which the respondent No.2 has appointed Shri C.B. Jaglian, District & Sessions Judge (Retired), Gurgaon, as an Arbitrator, because the appointment of Arbitrator is also without jurisdiction. |
| ii) | Any other relief as deemed fir by this Hon'ble Court. |
| iii) | Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. |
3. Learned counsel for the respondents have raised objection about maintainability of the writ petition mainly contending that the Facilitation Council has already passed the award on 24.08.2016 directing the petitioner to pay the amount as detailed in paragraph 17 of the award which reads as under.
4. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Sole Arbitrator was appointed by the Haryana Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, therefore, the petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy under the Act to file an appeal before the District Court. He would further submit that as per section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short "the Act, 2006"), reference to the facilitation council is to be made . Section 19 of the Act, 2006 provides that the application for setting aside decreeing award or order made either by the council itself of by an institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services to which a reference is made to the council, s
A writ petition challenging an award under the MSME Act is not maintainable unless the petitioner deposits 75% of the awarded amount, as mandated by Section 19 of the MSME Act, 2006.
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 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 ....
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.
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.
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 Facilitation Council must adhere to the procedural requirements of both the MSMED Act and the Arbitration Act, and failure to do so renders any award issued a nullity, which can be challenged out....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of complying with the provisions of Section 19 for challenging an award under the Act of 1996 and the limitations on entertaining a....
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
