IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
VIPIN SANGHI, ALOK KUMAR VERMA, JJ.
M/s B.S. Polypack through its proprietor - Appellant
Versus
M/s Uttaranchal Agro Food Ruler Mills and another - Respondents
Appeal From Order No. 99 of 2023
Decided on : 05-04-2023
Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act - 18, 34 - The judgment discusses the invocation of Section 18 of the MSMED Act by a micro enterprise, the conduct of conciliation proceedings, and the subsequent arbitration proceedings under the MSMED Act. The court also considers the overriding effect of Section 18 of the MSMED Act and the obligations of the Facilitation Council under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a micro enterprise, entered into a commercial transaction with the respondent. A dispute arose regarding the amount payable to the appellant. The Facilitation Council initiated conciliation proceedings, closed the proceedings, and commenced arbitration under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act. The respondent challenged the resulting Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, alleging a breach of Section 23.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the arbitration proceedings conducted by the Facilitation Council were in breach of Section 18 of the MSMED Act and the principles of natural justice. The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the need for compliance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Issues: The issues included the invocation of Section 18 of the MSMED Act, the conduct of conciliation and arbitration proceedings, and the compliance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the arbitration proceedings must comply with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, even when initiated under Section 18 of the MSMED Act. The failure to provide equal opportunity to each party and to adhere to the principles of natural justice constituted a breach of Section 18 and Section 23 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court directed the MSME Council to educate its officers on the law of Arbitration to prevent future violations.
JUDGMENT :
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
The present appeal, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is directed against the judgment dated 27.09.2022, passed by the court of Additional District Judge, Commercial, Dehradun, in Arbitration Case No. 35 of 2020, C.G. No. 69 of 2020, whereby the objections preferred by the respondent under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against the Award passed by the Facilitation Councildated 25.01.2020 have been allowed, and the said Award was set aside.
2) The appellant and the respondent entered into a commercial transaction, where under the appellant - being a micro enterprise, has undertaken the supply of certain goods to the respondent. A dispute arose with regard to the amount payable to the appellant. Since the appellant is a micro enterprise, the appellant invoked the remedy available to it under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act). The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council initiated conciliation proceedings. The claim of the appellant was registered as Case No. 271. On 04.11.2019, the said Facilitation Council recorded its minutes. The same reads as follows:-
oknh bdkbZ }kjk izfroknh bdkbZ dks vkiwfrZ fd;s x;s eky ds foyfEcr Hkqxrku ewy/ku :0 4]84]270& rFkk bl ij fnukad 30&09&18 rd vkxf.kr C;kt 10]67]051 dqy :0 15]51]321@& dk okn fnukad 15&10&18 dks izLrqr fd;k x;k ftls 15 fnukad ds Hkhrj viuk i{k j[kus gsrq izfroknh dks ifj"kn ds iathd`r i=kad 8030 fnukad 22&11&2018 }kjk izsf"kr fd;k x;kA izfroknh }kjk izR;qRrj miyC/k u djk;s tkus ij iqu% ifj"kn ds iathd`r i=kad 8543 fnukad 18&12&2018 }kjk 15 fnu ds vUrxZr izR;qRrj miyC/k djk;s tkus gsrq uksfVl fuxZr fd;k x;kA
iqu% ifj"kn ds iathd`r i=kad 9407 fnukad 29&01&2019 }kjk 15 fnu ds vUrxZr izR;qRrj miyC/k djk;s tkus gsrq uksfVl fuxZr fd;k x;kA
izfroknh }kjk vius izR;qRrj fnukad 2&2&2019 }kjk voxr djk;k x;k fd okn xyr rF;ksa ij izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA bl lEcU/k esa iwoZ esa :0 484271 ds lEcU/k esa Li"V fd;k x;k Fkk fd :0 243830 dk Hkqxrku oknh dks djuk gS uk fd izfroknh dksA bl lEcU/k esa nksuksa i{kksa esa ,d gLr fyf[kr ipkZ cuk;k x;k gS tks muds }kjk izR;qRrj ds lkFk layXu fd;k x;k gSA oknh ds i{k dk tkuus ds fy;s ifj"kn ds i=kad 9538 fnukad 05&02&19 dks izsf"kr fd;k x;kA
oknh }kjk vius izR;qRrj fnukad 22&2&19 esa voxr djk;k x;k fd izfroknh dk dFku vlR; gSA izfroknh dks dkuwuh uksfVl Hksts x;s ek= ;gh rF; Lohdk;Z gSA izfroknh }kjk dHkh Hkh uxn ysu nsu ugh fd;k x;kA oknh dh ,e0,l0,e0bZ0 bdkbZ gksus ds dkj.k okn ifj"kn ds {ks=kf/kdkj esa vkrk gSA
oknh ds bl mRrj ij izfroknh dk i{k j[kus gsrq ifj"kn ds iathd`r i=kad 9970 fnukad 27&02&19 }kjk uksfVl fuxZr fd;k izR;qRrj vfrfFk rd vkisf{kr gSA
ifj"kn dh cSBd fnukad 29&05&19 esa oknh ds izfrfuf/k Jh th0,l0 pkSgku mifLFkr ugha FksA tcfd izfroknh ds izfrfuf/k Jh Mh-,l-usxh mifLFkr jgsA ifj"kn }kjk vxyh cSBd dh frfFk esa lquokbZ dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA
ifj"kn dh cSBd fnukad 03&07&19 esa izfrfuf/k Jh th-,l- pkSgku rFkk izfroknh ds izfrfuf/k Mh-,l-usxh mifLFkr jgsA izfroknh }kjk voxr djk;k x;k fd muds }kjk oknh ds lkFk ,dkmUV dk feyku fd;k x;k vkSj mudh dh /kujkf'k oknh ij vo'ks"k gSA ifj"kn }kjk mHk; i{kksa dks lquus ds ckn vkxkeh cSBd ls iwoZ viuh vkfMVsM osysUl lhV ifj"kn ds dk;kZy; esa izLrqr djus ds funsZ'k fn;s x;sA
ifj"kn dh cSBd fnukad 20&08&19 esa oknh ds izfrfuf/k Jh th-,lpkSgku mifLFkr jgsa] tcfd izfroknh vuqifLFkr jgsA ifj"kn }kjk izfroknh dks funsZ'k fn;s fd muds }kjk oknh dk fd;s x;s Hkqxrku ds dksbZ lk{; gks rks mUgsa 15 fnu ds vUnj izLrqr djsaA
oknh ds ,MoksdsV izfrfuf/k }kjk pkVZMZ ,dkmUVsUV ls rS;kj dh x;h cSysal lhV fnukad 21&08&19 dks izLrqr dh x;hA oknh ds ,MoksdsV izfrfuf/k }kjk vkjfoZVªs'ku ,.M dkWflfy;s'ku ,DV dh /kkjk 70 ds vuqlkj lwpuk dh xksiuh;rk cuk;s j[kus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;kA
ifj"kn dh cSBd fnuk
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 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 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 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 absence of proper arbitration proceedings by the MSEF Council renders its decision invalid, allowing for judicial review of the matter under writ jurisdiction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Facilitation Council has the jurisdiction to act as an Arbitrator after the failure of conciliation proceedings under the MSME Act. The ri....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the prescribed procedures and principles of natural justice in arbitration proceedings under the MSME Act and the Ar....
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.
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act arises as is evident from sub Section (6) of Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, which inter alia provides that the parties aggrieved by such an arbitral award may ma....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.