Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH
Felguera Gruas India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Thiraviam Engineering Pvt Ltd – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges tribunal's jurisdiction. (Para 2) |
| 2. contractual background and arbitration initiation. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. discussion on maintainability of writ against arbitration award. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. jurisdiction issues and previous case references. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. respondent’s argument on jurisdiction and document submission. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. court considers evidence and prior proceedings. (Para 11 , 20) |
| 7. legal standing of respondent's registration under msme act. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 8. jurisdiction issues must be raised timely. (Para 17) |
| 9. court's reasoning on jurisdiction and misuse of process. (Para 21 , 23) |
| 10. final judgments, dismissal of writs, and costs imposed. (Para 24 , 25) |
ORDER :
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
The issue involved in both these Writ Petitions are common and hence, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common order.
2. The petitioner in both these writ petitions has challenged the Arbitral Award dated 02.12.2023, passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
3. The respondent is carrying on with business of fabrication, assembly and supply of engineering items in general and in particular
Writ petitions challenging an Arbitral Award for lack of jurisdiction are not maintainable if the jurisdiction issue is not raised before the Arbitrator, resulting in a waiver of the right to dispute....
The appellant should await the passing of the final award and take recourse under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, and no writ petition can be maintained against the in-between orders of the Arbitral T....
A writ petition challenging an order of non-arbitrability under the Arbitration Act is not maintainable when an alternative remedy via appeal exists.
The exclusive jurisdiction of the court as per the arbitration agreement revives post-award, and failure to follow statutory procedures under the MSMED Act warrants the award's annulment.
The MSME Council had jurisdiction to pass the award, and the appeal was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction, affirming the distinction between conciliation and arbitration.
An arbitral award must address all claims and counter-claims presented; failure to do so renders the award unintelligible and subject to annulment under Section 34.
The Facilitation Council lacks jurisdiction over disputes arising from works contracts under the MSME Act, and principles of natural justice must be adhered to in adjudicatory processes.
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
