TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>SC Upholds 75% Pre-Deposit Rule in Setting Aside Decree under Section 19</h1> <h3>Goodyear India Limited Versus Norton Intech Rubbers (P) Ltd. and Anr.</h3> The SC upheld the requirement of depositing seventy-five per cent of the award amount before setting aside a decree under Section 19 of the 2006 Act. The ... - Issues involved:The interpretation of Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 regarding pre-deposit requirements for setting aside decrees, awards, or orders.Judgment Details:Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 19 of the 2006 ActThe judgment dealt with four Special Leave Petitions challenging the order of the Madras High Court regarding the pre-deposit requirement under Section 19 of the 2006 Act. The Single Judge and the Division Bench upheld the requirement of depositing seventy-five per cent of the award amount before entertaining an Application to set aside the decree. The Court concluded that the provision does not allow for discretion to waive or reduce the pre-deposit amount, dismissing the original Petition but allowing an extended period for deposit.Issue 2: Arguments by Petitioner and RespondentsThe Petitioner, M/s. Goodyear India Limited, raised questions on the absolute nature of the pre-deposit requirement under Section 19 and the interpretation of the phrase 'in the manner directed by such Court.' The Petitioner's counsel argued for a more flexible approach, suggesting that the Court could allow alternative forms of securing the amount, such as through a Bank Guarantee. However, it was clarified that the challenge was not against the validity of Section 19 but for a more lenient interpretation to avoid undue hardship on litigants.Issue 3: Court's DecisionAfter considering the submissions from both parties, the Court declined to interfere with the views of the Single Judge and Division Bench regarding Section 19 of the 2006 Act. The Court referenced a previous case where similar challenges to Section 19 were dismissed. It was noted that the phrase 'in the manner directed by such Court' allows for the Court's discretion in allowing the pre-deposit to be made in installments. The Special Leave Petitions by M/s. Goodyear India Limited were dismissed, but the time for pre-deposit was extended by twelve weeks. The Special Leave Petitions by Norton Intech Rubbers (P) Limited were disposed of with leave to raise objections during the Appeal hearing.This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, focusing on the interpretation of Section 19 of the 2006 Act and the Court's decision on the pre-deposit requirements for setting aside decrees, awards, or orders.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
