Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
SUBODH ABHYANKAR
KAMCO Chew Food Pvt. Ltd., Through Authorized Person Mr. Kartar Singh, S/o. C/O Shri Shri Mulchand Pahumal Motyani – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh, Through Facilitation Council Madhya Pradesh Micro And Small Enterprises (MSME) – Respondent
ORDER :
SUBODH ABHYANKAR, J.
Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.
2] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 18.08.2023, passed by the Facilitation Council (hereinafter referred to as "the Council") under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (in short "MSME Act") in Case No.M.S.E.F.C./1905/2023, whereby the final award has been passed by the Facilitation Council.
3] The aforesaid award has been challenged by the petitioner only on the ground of not providing the opportunity of proper hearing, as according to the petitioner, the notice was issued by the Council on 16.06.2023, which was served on the petitioner only on 30.06.2023.
4] Shri Shantanu Sharma, leaned counsel has submitted that in the notice dated 16.06.2023, which was served on the petitioner on 30.06.2023, it was mentioned that the petitioner had 15 day's time to file his reply, however, before the due date i.e. 15.07.2023, another notice was issued to the petitioner on 27.06.2023, via email informing that the date of hearing is 07.07.2023, failing which ex-parte proceedings shall be initiated against the petition
The court ruled that a claim of denial of natural justice must demonstrate actual prejudice to warrant interference, emphasizing that lack of opportunity alone does not invalidate proceedings without....
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 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 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....
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.
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 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 High Court will not entertain a writ petition if an effective alternative remedy is available under the MSMED Act, emphasizing adherence to statutory procedures for grievance redressal.
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
