https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343033 Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, which requires a 75% pre-deposit for entertaining an application to set aside an award, was held constitutionally valid because the right to challenge the award is statutory and may be conditioned. The Court rejected the Article 14 challenge, distinguishing the provision from oppressive first-instance restrictions, but held that the deposit requirement should not be applied mechanically. In deserving cases, the court may grant waiver or reduction as incidental interim protection, exercised sparingly on a strong prima facie case where strict compliance would frustrate the remedy. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted for reconsideration of interim protection. en-us Mon, 27 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 May 2017 07:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343033 Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, which requires a 75% pre-deposit for entertaining an application to set aside an award, was held constitutionally valid because the right to challenge the award is statutory and may be conditioned. The Court rejected the Article 14 challenge, distinguishing the provision from oppressive first-instance restrictions, but held that the deposit requirement should not be applied mechanically. In deserving cases, the court may grant waiver or reduction as incidental interim protection, exercised sparingly on a strong prima facie case where strict compliance would frustrate the remedy. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted for reconsideration of interim protection. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 27 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343033