Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, CJ., MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Tulasi Modern Rice Mill – Appellant
Versus
Orissa State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. msef council decision challenged in court (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. nature of decision under msmed act (Para 5) |
| 3. msmed act provisions for small enterprise protection (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. msef council's decision can't be arbitral award (Para 18) |
| 5. court upholds single judge's decision (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
3. A learned Single Judge of this Court has set aside the said decision of the MSEF Council as illegal and not in accordance with law on the ground that there had been no arbitration proceeding conducted by the MSEF Council as stipulated under sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the MSMED Act, by a judgment and order dated 29.04.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.39436 of 2021, which is under challenge in the present intra-Court appeal.
5. The primordial question which the present case involves is as to whether the impugned decision of the MSEF Council can be treated to an award under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, in the given facts and circumstances, applying the provisions under the MSMED Act. If the answer to the said question is in affirmative, the writ petition ought not to have been entertained. However,
The absence of proper arbitration proceedings by the MSEF Council renders its decision invalid, allowing for judicial review of the matter under writ jurisdiction.
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 against arbitral award is maintainable; petitioner must follow remedies under Arbitration Act.
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 conciliation proceedings contemplated under Section 18(2) of MSMED Act is mandatory in nature, and failure to comply with the mandatory procedure vitiates the impugned order.
The arbitration proceedings initiated under Section 18 of the MSMED Act must comply with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and failure to do so constitutes a breach of the 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.
The arbitration agreement's designation of venue and exclusive jurisdiction prevails over statutory arbitration under the MSMED Act, and the statutory arbitration does not override the parties' agree....
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....
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
