Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SANJEEB K.PANIGRAHI
Aryan Ispat and Power Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
General Manager O/o The District Industries Centre, Rourkela – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual overview of the case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for both parties presented (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. issues for consideration framed (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. legal standards for challenging award (Para 7 , 8 , 19) |
| 5. legislative intent of msmed act enforceable (Para 20 , 21) |
| 6. conclusion on the petition's validity and order (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI, J.
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 4.11.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Commercial Court, Rourkela, in Arbitration Petition No. 10 of 2024. By the impugned order, the Commercial Court revisited and recalled the earlier order dated 21.4.2025, whereby the petitioner’s application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the award of the Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Rourkela, had been admitted and further directed the deposit of 75% of the award amount.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The petitioner, M/s. Aryan Ispat & Power Private Limited, is engaged in industrial operations and was involved in commercial de
The mandatory deposit requirement under Section 19 of the MSMED Act must be fulfilled before entertaining applications to set aside arbitration awards, ensuring fairness to MSMEs and compliance with ....
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 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 requirement of depositing 75% of the awarded amount under Section 19 of the MSMED Act is mandatory for parties challenging an arbitration award, independent of their claims regarding involvement ....
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....
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 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 ....
A writ petition challenging an award under the MSME Act is not maintainable unless the petitioner deposits 75% of the awarded amount, as mandated by Section 19 of the MSME Act, 2006.
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.
Point of Law : Arbitration Award - Having specifically found that the petitioner/buyer failed to make payment of the outstanding amount to the respondent/supplier in respect of at least six of the ei....
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
