Mandatory pre-deposit for challenge to award under special payment statute applies alongside general arbitration law

A special statute governing delayed payment disputes required deposit of 75% of the awarded amount as a condition precedent to challenging an award, and that requirement operated cumulatively with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The general arbitration remedy did not displace the statutory pre-deposit regime under the 1993 Act and, after its repeal, the continuing scheme under the MSMED Act. An application to set aside the award could therefore be entertained only after compliance with the mandatory deposit requirement, and a direction permitting a lesser deposit was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application for setting aside an award made pursuant to a reference under the 1993 Act can be entertained only on deposit of 75% of the awarded amount, and whether the requirement under the special statute operates in addition to Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The dispute was referred under Section 6(2) of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993, under which the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 apply as if the arbitration were pursuant to an arbitration agreement. The special statute also contained a mandatory pre-deposit regime, and Section 7 required deposit of 75% of the awarded amount as a condition for challenge. The 1993 Act stood repealed by Section 32 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, and Section 19 of that Act continued the same protective scheme by making entertainment of an application for setting aside the award conditional upon deposit of 75% of the amount in terms of the decree or award. Section 34 of the 1996 Act therefore had to be read along with the special enactments, and the statutory deposit requirement was cumulative and not displaced by the general arbitration provision.

Conclusion: The application for setting aside the award could not be entertained unless 75% of the awarded amount was deposited, and the direction to permit a lesser deposit was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the award failed, and the application could proceed only after compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute governing delayed payment disputes prescribes deposit of 75% of the awarded amount as a condition precedent, that requirement must be read with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and complied with before an application to set aside the award can be entertained.

---