Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J
M/s K.d. Infraengicon Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Jharkhand Micro And Small Scale Enterprises Facilitation Council Through The Under Secretary Cum Member Secretary Having Its Office At Nepal House – Respondent
ORDER :
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in Memo No.2140 dated 29.11.2022 passed in connection with Case No. JHMSEFC-43/2021 corresponding to New Case No. JH/20/S/JKH/00286 whereby and whereunder claims of the respondent no.3 against the petitioner have been allowed.
2. Petitioner is a private limited company and claim of Rs.21,94,982.79 with interest was raised by respondent no.3 before the Jharkhand Micro and Small Scale Enterprises Facilitation Council, Ranchi towards the supply of Thermoplastic Road Marking Paint, Potters Glass Beads, Catalysts, RPM Epoxy kit etc. in the year 2019.
3. Notice was issued vide letter no.1519 dated 10.08.2021 by MSMED Facilitation Council to file reply within a period of seven days. In pursuant to the notice issued, the petitioner appeared and raised preliminary objections. The Council held its meeting on 25.08.2021 and admitted the case. Further sittings were held on 14.12.2021, 01.06.2022 and finally on 12.09.2022, when the award was passed which is under challenge before instant writ petition.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that the provisions of the MS
The absence of mandated conciliation proceedings renders an award invalid, allowing for judicial review under writ jurisdiction.
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 MSMED Act, 2006 provides a statutory framework that allows the Facilitation Council to act as an arbitrator after conciliation, overriding the restrictions of the Arbitration Act, 1996.
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 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....
Writ petition not maintainable against MSMED Council orders; must challenge via Section 34 A&C Act with 75% pre-deposit.
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.
The absence of proper arbitration proceedings by the MSEF Council renders its decision invalid, allowing for judicial review of the matter under writ jurisdiction.
Proper procedural compliance with the provisions of the MSMED Act, particularly Sections 18(2) and 18(3), is essential for the validity of orders and awards.
Writ petition against arbitral award is maintainable; petitioner must follow remedies under Arbitration Act.
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
