TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Petitions, being S.L.P.(C) Nos. 16919-16920 of 2011 S.L.P.(C) Nos. 31468-31469 of 2011, have been filed against the judgment and order dated 10th June, 2011, passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in O.S.A. No. 119 of 2011 M.P. No. 1 of 2011, filed by M/s. Goodyear India Limited. The First Two Special Leave Petitions have been filed by M/s. Goodyear India Limited, while the other two have been filed by M/s. Norton Intech Rubbers (P) Ltd. The said Appeal had been preferred by M/s. Goodyear India Limited against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 7th April, 2011, in O.P. No. 888 of 2010, which was an Application to set aside an award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The main question which ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms of the decree, award or as the case may be, the other order, in the manner directed by such Court. The learned Single Judge having considered the submissions made on the said provision came to the conclusion that on a plain reading of the Section, the Court had no discretion to either waive or reduce the amount of seventy-five per cent of the award as a pre-deposit for filing of the Appeal and, accordingly, dismissed the original Petition, with leave to the Petitioner to deposit an amount, amounting to seventy-five per cent of the award, within an extended period of six weeks. 4. The Division Bench before whom the aforesaid Appeal was preferred concurred with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and while dismissing the Appeal, e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iso. Mr. Ramachandran sought to interpret Section 19 within the meaning of such expression by submitting that the said expression provided the Court with discretion to alter the provisions relating to deposit of seventy-five per cent as pre-deposit, for the Appeal to be taken up for consideration. According to Mr. Ramachandran, the said expression could also be understood to include securing of the amount by way of Bank Guarantee or otherwise, having regard to the onerous and stringent conditions involved. 9. Of course, Mr. Ramachandran has submitted that no attempt has been made by the Petitioner herein to challenge the vires of Section 19 of the 2006 Act. Mr. Ramachandran submitted that he was only interested in having the provisions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason to interfere with the views expressed, both by the learned Single Judge, as also the Division Bench with regard to Section 19 of the 2006 Act. It may not be out of place to mention that the provisions of Section 19 of the 2006 Act, had been challenged before the Kerala High Court in K.S.R.T.C. v. Union of India , Indlaw Ker 666, where the same submissions were negated and, subsequently, the matter also came up to this Court, when the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed, with leave to make the pre-deposit in the cases involved, within an extended period often weeks. 12. We may also indicate that the expression in the manner directed by such Court would, in our view, indicate the discretion given to the Court to allow the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
