<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2021 (10) TMI 480 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413428</link>
    <description>Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 makes a seventy-five per cent pre-deposit a mandatory condition for entertaining an application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court has no discretion to waive or reduce that statutory deposit; its limited discretion is confined to directing the manner of payment, including instalments where appropriate. The expression &quot;in the manner directed by such court&quot; was read as regulating the mode of deposit only, not diluting the statutory threshold. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed that the pre-deposit requirement is compulsory, while the earlier interim arrangement was treated as case-specific.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2021 09:28:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=658322" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (10) TMI 480 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413428</link>
      <description>Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 makes a seventy-five per cent pre-deposit a mandatory condition for entertaining an application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court has no discretion to waive or reduce that statutory deposit; its limited discretion is confined to directing the manner of payment, including instalments where appropriate. The expression &quot;in the manner directed by such court&quot; was read as regulating the mode of deposit only, not diluting the statutory threshold. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed that the pre-deposit requirement is compulsory, while the earlier interim arrangement was treated as case-specific.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413428</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>