Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, J
Union Territory of J And K – Appellant
Versus
Ms Gulati Metals And Alloys – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners sought to set aside an award (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments made by mr. abdul rashid malik (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. the essence of the particular provisions (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. the court ruled that the msmed act (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. the court dismisses the present petition (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
2. Through the medium of this petition, the Chief Engineer, System & Operation Wing, Kashmir and the Executive Engineer TLMD-IV, JKPTCL Pampore are the ones asking for setting aside of an award dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, (in short “MSEFC”), Jammu in case No. JK/19/S/11117 under section 18 of MSMED Act, 2006.
4. As against the arguments made by Mr. Abdul Rashid Malik, learned Sr. AAG representing the petitioners aiming to hit at the said award from all sides,factual as well as legal, Mr. Karman Singh Johal, Advocate for the respondent draws the attention of this Court towards para 15 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India’s judgment in the case of “M/s India Glycols Limited” (supra), wherein it is observed that when the High Court of Telangana had come to hold that a petition under section
The court ruled that petitions under Article 227 are not maintainable against awards under the MSMED Act, emphasizing the need to follow statutory remedies provided by the Act.
Important Point : The court established that statutory remedies must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction against awards under the MSMED Act.
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 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....
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 judgment establishes that Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked when other legal remedies have not been pursued, and it underscores the importance of timely recourse to avail....
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.
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 High Court will not entertain a writ petition if an effective alternative remedy is available under the MSMED Act, emphasizing adherence to statutory procedures for grievance redressal.
An award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council under the MSMED Act is an award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and therefore, it cannot be challenged by way....
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
