IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
M/s Pratap Industries Products - Petitioner
Versus
M/s Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. - Respondent
CMPMO No.301 of 2023
Decided On : 26-06-2023
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 - Section 19 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Arbitrator award - Stay of implementation of award - Application seeking stay of implementation/execution of award – Dispute between parties is as to whether deposit made by respondent before learned District Judge was in consonance with requirement of Section 19 of Act or not - Para 5.
Finding of the Court :
Dispute between parties is as to whether deposit made by respondent before learned District Judge was in consonance with requirement of Section 19 of Act or not - Pre-deposit of 75% of awarded amount under Section 19 of Act is a mandatory requirement - Considering hardship which may be projected and Court being satisfied pre-deposit may be allowed to be made in instalments - Respondent has deposited an amount of Rs.3618716/-whereas it was required to deposit an amount of Rs.47,94,688/- (75% of the awarded amount) - According to learned counsel for respondent, deposit made by respondent satisfies Section 19 of Act - It will be appropriate to relegate parties to learned District Judge for fresh decision of application moved by respondent under Section 19 of Act.
Result: Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
The challenge in this petition is to order dated 21.12.2022, passed by the learned District Judge, whereby application moved under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (the Act in short) was disposed of.
2. The award was passed by the Arbitrator on 30. 10.2021 in reference No. 3/5. Objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were preferred by the present respondent against the aforesaid award before the learned District Judge. Alongwith the objections, an application under Section 19 of the Act read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure was also instituted, seeking stay of the implementation/execution of the award dated 30.10.2021. The applicant’s (present respondent) contention before learned District Judge was that in compliance of Section 19 of the Act, it had deposited 75% of the total awarded amount. It was further alleged that the present petitioner was proceeding ahead with the execution of the award dated 30.10.2021, hence, prayer was made for staying the execution of the aforesaid award.
The contention of the present petitioner (respondent before the learned District Judge) was that the amount deposited by the present respondent was short of 75% of the awarded amount. It was submitted that the deposit was not in terms of the requirement of Section 19 of the Act, therefore, the respondent was not entitled for the stay of the impugned award.
3. Learned District Judge allowed the application moved by the respondent under Section 19 of the Act vide his order dated 21.12.2022, staying the implementation and execution of the impugned award dated 30.10.2021 after holding that “as per the record, the applicant has deposited 75% of the award amount in compliance of the said provision.” Aggrieved, against order dated 21.12.2022, recourse to present petition has been made by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner in its reply to the application had brought to the notice of learned District Judge that the deposit made by the present respondent fell short of the requirements under Section 19 of the Act. Without deciding as to whether the amount deposited by the respondent fulfilled the requirement of Section 19 of the Act, learned District Judge could not have assumed that the deposit made by the respondent was actually 75 % of the awarded amount.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent. The dispute between the parties is as to whether the deposit made by the respondent before the learned District Judge was in consonance with the requirement of Section 19 of the Act or not. Section 19 of the Act reads as under : -
Provided that pending disposal of the application to set aside the decree, award or order, the court shall order that such percentage of the amount deposited shall be paid to the supplier, as it considers reasonable under the circumstances of the case subject to such conditions as it deems necessary to impose.
Hon’ble Apex Court in its decision dated 19.04.2022 rendered in Civil Appeal No. 2941 of 2022 (M/s Tirupati Steels Vs. M/s Shubh Industrial Component & others) held that pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount under Section 19 of the Act is a mandatory requirement. However, at the same time, considering the hardship which may be projected and the Court being satisfied the pre-deposit may be allowed to
Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority Vs. Aska Equipments Limited
The pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount under section 19 of the MSMED Act is mandatory, but the court may allow the pre-deposit to be made in instalments if undue hardship is projected.
Appeal/Application against arbitral award – Requirement of deposit of 75% of awarded amount as a pre-deposit is mandatory.
Point of Law : Arbitration Award - Having specifically found that the petitioner/buyer failed to make payment of the outstanding amount to the respondent/supplier in respect of at least six of the ei....
The Commercial Court has discretion under the MSME Act to allow installment payments for pre-deposit, and cannot dismiss a petition solely for non-compliance without considering requests for extensio....
The interpretation of the deposit requirement under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in relation to the secured decreetal amount and the provisions of the Micro, Small and Me....
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 requirement of depositing 75% of the awarded amount under Section 19 of the MSMED Act is mandatory for parties challenging an arbitration award, independent of their claims regarding involvement ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that an application for setting aside an arbitration award can only be entertained if the applicant deposits 75% of the amount awarded, as manda....
The court ruled that the pre-deposit of 75% of the arbitral award under the MSMED Act is mandatory, and appeals are not maintainable for orders outside those specifically enumerated in the Commercial....
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.