Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
RS Development and Construction India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Represented by its Chair Person, Director of Industries & Commerce – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges arbitration award under msmed act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments on maintainability and natural justice raised. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. court discusses maintainability under article 226 and remedies. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 24) |
| 4. final decision to dismiss writ petition and allow alternate remedies. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
ORDER :
2.The 2nd respondent herein had filed a petition under Section 18 (1) of the 2006 Act, on 18.10.2021. It claimed for the recovery of a sum of Rs.2,38,22,126/-, together with interestagainst the writ petitioner. The 2nd respondent claimed that it had entered into an agreement with the writ petitioner, who had defaulted in payments of money due to it. It submitted that, it made several requests, but as the payment had not been made by the petitioner, it approached the 1st respondent for resolution of the dispute.
4.Notice of Arbitration was issued to the writ petitioner. The 1st respondent recorded that on 09.10.2024, the writ petitioner and the 2nd respondent were asked to give their consent to proceed with the arbitration either by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEF Council) itself, or re
Writ petition against arbitral award is maintainable; petitioner must follow remedies under Arbitration Act.
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 Jurisdiction – Access to High Courts by way of writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, is not just a constitutional right but also a part of basic structure – It is available t....
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 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 absence of proper arbitration proceedings by the MSEF Council renders its decision invalid, allowing for judicial review of the matter under writ jurisdiction.
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.
The High Court cannot exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution against the awards or orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunals as it would defeat the object of minimi....
Important Point : The court established that statutory remedies must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction against awards under the MSMED 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
