TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 981X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into consideration the earlier decision of this Court in the case of GOODYEAR INDIA LIMITED VERSUS NORTON INTECH RUBBERS (P) LTD. AND ANR. [ 2012 (3) TMI 611 - SUPREME COURT ], it is observed and held that the requirement of deposit of 75% of the amount in terms of the award as a predeposit as per section 19 of the MSMED Act, is mandatory. It is also observed that however, at the same time, considering the hardship which may be projected before the appellate court and if the appellate court is satisfied that there shall be undue hardship caused to the appellant/applicant to deposit 75% of the awarded amount as a pre-deposit at a time, the court may allow the pre-deposit to be made in instalments. Therefore, it is specifically observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il constituted under the MSMED Act, 2006 for recovery of ₹ 1,40,13,053/and interest amounting to ₹ 1,32,20,100/which comes to a total amounting to ₹ 2,72,33,153/. On the failure of conciliation, the dispute was referred to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator, appointed through the MSME Facilitation Council at Chandigarh, passed an award in favour of the appellant vide award dated 16.07.2018. Thereafter, the appellant herein filed the execution petition before the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad. Respondent No.1 herein filed an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 for setting aside the arbitral award before the Special Commercial Court, Gurugram. That the appellant herein submitted an application unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court permitting the proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, to go on without insistence for making pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount, the appellant herein original judgment creditor has preferred the present appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 4. The question which is posed for consideration of this Court is, whether, the pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount as per section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006, while challenge to the award under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, is made mandatory or not, is now no longer res integra in view of the decision of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re-deposit is mandatory. However, at the same time, considering the hardship which may be projected before the appellate court and if the appellate court is satisfied that there shall be undue hardship caused to the appellant applicant to deposit 75% of the awarded amount as a pre-deposit at a time, the court may allow the pre-deposit to be made in instalments. 5. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the impugned order passed by the High Court permitting the proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 without insistence for making pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. As observed hereinabove, while passing the impugned order, the Division ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
