Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Controller of Stores, Northern Railway – Appellant
Versus
CBM Industries Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of purchase orders, supplies, payment stoppage, and cbi investigation (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. key msmed act provisions on payments, interest, and supplier definition (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. arbitration reference, proceedings, and award issuance (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. petitioner's contentions on limitation bar and registration invalidity (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. respondent's counter on voluntary em-ii filing and delayed denial (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. narrow scope of section 34 interference with awards (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 7. em-ii filing discretionary, not mandatory for micro/small enterprises (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 8. limitation accrues from post-investigation payment denial (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 9. no patent illegality; petition dismissed upholding award (Para 60 , 61 , 62) |
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Instant petition lays challenge to award dated 5.3.2018 published on 19.3.2018 by the Sole Arbitrator, awarding therein sum of Rs. 4,80,35,154/- as principal amount plus interest Rs.50,38,09,370/-, tota
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....
The court upheld the Arbitral Award, affirming that timelines and knowledge of the transaction were not claimed by the petitioner regarding delayed delivery impact.
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....
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.
The MSMED Act prevails over A&C Act provisions regarding interest, granting small enterprises specific rights on delayed payments independent of dispute resolution processes.
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....
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides a limited window of challenge to an arbitral award, and a violation of a statute, not tied to public policy or public interest, cannot serv....
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
