Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Industries – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. foundation facts of the dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. objections raised regarding petition's maintainability. (Para 5 , 8) |
| 3. arguments establishing non-compliance of procedural laws. (Para 6) |
| 4. court's detailed observations regarding procedural lapses. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. legal standards for arbitral awards and procedural adherence. (Para 17 , 18 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. discussion on pre-deposit requirement under msmed act. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. final orders and directions given by the court. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT :
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
“(i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the Decision/Award/Decree contained in Memo No. 933/Ranchi, dated 5.4.2018 in Case No. JHMSEFC-03/2011 (Annexure-10) passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice without even serving notice of hearing upon the petitioner, even though the matter was remanded by this Hon’ble Court vide its order/judgment dated 14.9.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6464/2012 (Annexure-6);
AND/OR
(ii) For issuance of any other appropriate writ, orde
The Facilitation Council's failure to adhere to prescribed procedures in the MSMED Act renders its award a nullity, invalidating the requirement for challenge under the Arbitration Act.
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....
Orders by MSEFC failing to follow arbitration procedures under the MSMED Act are not valid awards, allowing for writ petitions under Article 226 due to natural justice violations.
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....
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.
Important Point : The court established that statutory remedies must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction against awards under the MSMED Act.
Writ petition against arbitral award is maintainable; petitioner must follow remedies under Arbitration Act.
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act arises as is evident from sub Section (6) of Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, which inter alia provides that the parties aggrieved by such an arbitral award may ma....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Facilitation Council has the jurisdiction to act as an Arbitrator after the failure of conciliation proceedings under the MSME Act. The ri....
The main legal point established is that arbitration proceedings under the MSMED Act must adhere to the procedural requirements of the Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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
