Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Hindustan Copper Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contentions on msefc proceedings. (Para 4 , 5 , 10) |
| 3. requirement for arbitral awards. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. exceptions to alternative remedies. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. jurisdiction of high courts. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. natural justice in arbitration. (Para 20 , 35 , 36) |
| 7. constitutional scrutiny of nullity. (Para 37 , 38 , 43 , 44) |
| 8. outcome and order. (Para 42 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The present Writ Petition has been preferred seeking quashing of the order/ award dated 30.07.2024 passed by the Opposite Party No.2/ Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, Rourkela in MSEFC Case No.24 of 2010.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(ii) That, the Petitioner is a Government of India enterprise engaged in manufacturing activities.
(iii) The Petitioner floated a tender for 700M/Ts of Iron Balls and the present Opposite Party No. 3 was selected as a supplier in accordance with the terms of notice. A purchase order was, accordingly, issued in favour of O.P. No. 3.
(iv) It is alleged that due to non-supply of Iron Balls within the schedule
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.
Important Point : The court established that statutory remedies must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction against awards under the MSMED Act.
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....
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 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....
Writ petition against arbitral award is maintainable; petitioner must follow remedies under Arbitration Act.
The High Court cannot entertain writ petitions challenging awards of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council without the mandatory deposit of 75% of the awarded amount as per Section 19 ....
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.
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
