TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether an application to set aside an award rendered by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council could be entertained without deposit of seventy-five per cent of the award amount. (ii) Whether the plea of sickness under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 barred execution of the award.
Issue (i): Whether an application to set aside an award rendered by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council could be entertained without deposit of seventy-five per cent of the award amount.
Analysis: Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 makes deposit of seventy-five per cent of the awarded amount a mandatory condition for entertaining an application to set aside an award. The special scheme under Sections 18, 19 and 24 of the Act of 2006 overrides inconsistent provisions of other laws. The application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging such award must therefore be read with the deposit requirement, and without compliance the application is not duly constituted for consideration. As the required deposit had not been made and the order refusing to entertain the Section 34 application had attained finality, execution of the award could proceed.
Conclusion: The requirement of pre-deposit was mandatory, and the objection to execution on the ground of pendency of the Section 34 application failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the plea of sickness under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 barred execution of the award.
Analysis: A sick industrial company can claim the protection of Section 22 only when the legal requirements of that statute are established, including the relevance of the awarded liability to a scheme under the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. A bare assertion of sickness is insufficient. In the present case, there was no showing that the award amount had been included in any approved scheme, nor was it established how the civil court's jurisdiction stood excluded on the facts pleaded. The objection was therefore incomplete and could not defeat execution.
Conclusion: The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not bar execution in the facts of the case.
Final Conclusion: The execution objections were rightly rejected, and the writ petition challenging that rejection failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute mandates a pre-deposit as a condition precedent for entertaining a challenge to an award, that requirement must be complied with before the challenge can suspend or obstruct execution, and a bare plea of industrial sickness does not bar execution unless the statutory protection is specifically established on the facts.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
