Back
SANJEEV KUMAR
Union Territory of J&K – Appellant
Versus
Aibak Electric Industries – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashment of award sought by petitioners. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. challenges against award due to process failure. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. interpretation of msmed act provisions. (Para 7 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. essential elements of dispute resolution under msmed act. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's observations on procedural requirements of msmed act. (Para 13) |
| 6. guidelines for council's operation under msmed. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. arbitration framework under msmed act. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. invalidity of council's proceedings. (Para 24) |
| 9. court's concluding orders and directions. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGEMENT
1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Engineer, M&RE Wing, Srinagar, alongwith Executive Engineer Electric Division Baramulla have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for seeking quashment of an award dated 20.04.2021 passed by the Secretary, Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Kashmir Division, Srinagar, in case titled Aibak Electrical Industries v. Chief Engineer, M&RE Wing, Srinagar, as also an order dated 13.06.2023 passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge (Bank Cases) Srinagar ['the executing
The lack of conciliation does not undermine the statutory obligation to make payment under the MSMED Act, emphasizing the importance of adherence to payment timelines by the buyer.
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 MSMED Act, 2006 applies only to delayed payments to Micro and Small Enterprises, and it does not contemplate an independent claim by the Buyer against the Supplier.
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 court ruled that a party to a dispute cannot waive the mandatory conciliation requirement under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act, validating subsequent arbitration proceedings.
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
