Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE
Swiss Garniers Genexiaa Sciences Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Authorised Signatory Mr. Suresh Lal – Appellant
Versus
TSA Process Equipments Pvt Ltd., Mumbai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of arbitration petition and claims (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments against the award (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on counter-claim and jurisdiction (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. court's reasoning on unintelligible award (Para 7 , 9) |
| 5. conclusion: award set aside (Para 10) |
ORDER :
(ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.)
This petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short “the Act”) challenging the impugned award dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) (in short “Council”) under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (in short “MSMED Act”).
2. The respondent claims to have supplied materials based on purchase orders placed by the petitioner. According to the respondent, certain sums of money are due and payable to them by the petitioner for the supplies made by them. The respondent claimed that they are registered under the MSMED Act and therefore, they are entitled to make a reference to the Council for the recovery of the amount due and payable by the petitioner to the respondent. Accordingly, they made a reference to the Council as per the provisions of
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 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.
An application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be entertained without the pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount as mandated by Section 19 of the MSMED Act.
The court emphasized the importance of addressing the parties' defenses and providing adequate reasoning in arbitral awards.
The registration under the MSMED Act, 2006 applies prospectively and not retrospectively, and the benefits of the Act do not apply if the registration is obtained subsequently to the agreement and th....
The Arbitral Tribunal retains jurisdiction despite delays in issuing an award, provided the delay is not due to its own inaction, and counter-claims must be timely filed to be valid.
The Arbitral Tribunal retained jurisdiction despite the expiration of statutory deadlines, and the rejection of a belated counter-claim was justified under the Arbitration Act.
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....
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.
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
