Case Law
Subject : Litigation News - Arbitration Law
Shimla,
The Court held that the onerous condition of a 75% pre-deposit under Section 19 of the
The case originated from a 2013 agreement where M/s Medipole Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd., a
In 2017, the supplier shifted the legal battle to
Petitioner's (BMSICL) Arguments:
Violation of Natural Justice: Senior Counsel for BMSICL argued that the arbitrator rushed the proceedings during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. They contended that being based in Patna, they were unable to travel and present their case, leading to an unjust ex-parte award.
Arbitrator's Misconduct: It was highlighted that the arbitrator allowed the supplier to massively enhance its claim from the initial ₹29.83 crores to ₹66.50 crores, and finally to over ₹95 crores, without any notice to BMSICL. This was argued to be beyond the scope of the arbitral reference.
Jurisdiction: BMSICL contested the jurisdiction of the HP Council, citing a clause in the original agreement that vested exclusive jurisdiction in the courts of Bihar.
Onerous Pre-Deposit: They argued that the mandatory 75% pre-deposit (amounting to over ₹72 crores) for challenging the award was an onerous condition that rendered their statutory remedy illusory, justifying the invocation of the High Court's writ jurisdiction.
Respondent's (
Special Statute: Counsel for the supplier argued that the MSMED Act is a special law with overriding effect, and Section 18(4) grants jurisdiction to the Council where the supplier is located.
Statutory Timelines: The speed of the proceedings was justified under Section 18(5) of the MSMED Act, which mandates a decision within 90 days.
Pre-Deposit is Mandatory: A strong objection was raised against the maintainability of the challenge, asserting that Section 19 of the MSMED Act makes the 75% pre-deposit a mandatory pre-condition for any court to entertain an application to set aside an award.
The High Court decisively sided with BMSICL, quashing the arbitral award and directing the Council to appoint a new arbitrator. The Bench made several critical observations.
"The old adage that 'justice hurried is justice buried' comes to mind in the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted by the Arbitrator."
On Violation of Natural Justice: The Court noted that the ex-parte proceedings were initiated on March 19, 2021, and the award was passed on April 6, 2021—a period when the Supreme Court had issued suo motu orders extending limitation periods due to the pandemic. The failure to provide BMSICL, a party based in a distant state, a fair opportunity to present its case was deemed a gross violation of natural justice.
On Arbitrator's Misconduct: The Court found the arbitrator's conduct in allowing the claim to be enhanced from ₹29.83 crores to ₹95.71 crores without notice to the buyer as a "patent illegality appearing on the face of it." This was held to be a decision on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, constituting clear misconduct.
"The claimants had thus gone from Rs.29,83,80,909.00/-, to claim Rs.95,71,00,208.00/-... The audacity as such of the Buyer to have claimed enhanced amount... has apparently misconducted himself on the face of the record."
On Writ Jurisdiction and Onerous Pre-Deposit: Addressing the crucial issue of maintainability, the Court acknowledged the Supreme Court's differing views on whether a writ petition is maintainable against an MSMED award. While the India Glycols Ltd. case barred it, the view was doubted in the Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. case, which referred the matter to a larger bench.
The High Court held that the rule of alternative remedy is one of discretion, not compulsion. Citing the onerous condition of depositing over ₹72 crores, the Court concluded that it would be unjust to deny relief.
"Such onerous condition to deposit 75% amount of Rs.95 crores, in our considered opinion, would not be liable to be met in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case... it would bring the Corporation to its knees... when there is patent illegality, irregularity and mis-conduct on the part of the Arbitrator."
The High Court disposed of both the writ petition and the arbitration case by setting aside the impugned award. It directed the HP
#Arbitration #MSMEDAct #NaturalJustice
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Consolidated SCNs under Sections 73/74 CGST Act Permissible Across Multiple FYs: Karnataka HC
01 May 2026
Allahabad HC Stays NCLT Principal Bench Order Mandating Joint Scrutiny of Allahabad Bench Filings
01 May 2026
Bombay HC Grants Interim Protection from Arrest Despite Pending Anticipatory Bail in Lower Court Due to Accused's Marriage: Sections 351(2), 64(2)(m), 74 IPC
01 May 2026
Heavy Machinery Barred in Mining Leases Except Dredging: Uttarakhand HC Directs DM to Enforce Rule 29(17) of Minor Mineral Rules
01 May 2026
No Deemed Confirmation After Probation Without Written Order Under Model Standing Orders Clause 4A: Bombay High Court
01 May 2026
CJI Declares Sikkim India's First Paperless Judiciary
01 May 2026
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.