Case Law Details
Chemflo Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs KMC Construction Ltd. and another (Orissa High Court)
Petitioner submits, impugned is order dated 13th March, 2015 passed on the interlocutory application of his client made in arbitration petition (ARBP no. 122 of 2013), of purported challenge of opposite parties to award dated 29th January, 2011. He submits, by the application his client raised issue of maintainability of the challenge. The ground was regarding 75% deposit as pre-condition for admission of the appeal, mandated by section 19 in Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. The Court below rejected the demurrer application on erroneous consideration of fact that already Rs.10,000,00/- had been realized by his client in the execution proceeding pending in the Court of Principal District Judge at LB Nagar, Hyderabad.
Question raised in this writ petition is regarding compliance with mandatory provision in section 19 of the 2006 Act, by the Court in admitting, for adjudication, the challenge under section 34 of the 1996 Act. The result of the adjudication is also appealable to Court as provided in section 37 of the 1996 Act. There has been an adjudication on the question of admissibility of the challenge with regard to provision in section 19 of the 2006 Act. That can be taken as a ground in appeal, in event petitioner is aggrieved by the adjudication to follow. In the circumstances Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, is not inclined to term this as rarest of rare case for intervention by judicial review where the matter relates to arbitration. [See judgment dated 6th January, 2021 of the Supreme Court in Appeal (Civil) 14665 of 2015 (Bhaven Construction v. Ex. Engineer Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd.)]. This is also because there cannot be a pronouncement for calculation of interest at three times the bank notified rate compounded with monthly rests, on time taken by the Council to adjudicate on the claim arising by supply made on 22nd July, 2002, on award dated 29th January, 2011.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT
1. Mr. Pal, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. He submits, impugned is order dated 13th March, 2015 passed on the interlocutory application of his client made in arbitration petition (ARBP no. 122 of 2013), of purported challenge of opposite parties to award dated 29th January, 2011. He submits, by the application his client raised issue of maintainability of the challenge. The ground was regarding 75% deposit as pre-condition for admission of the appeal, mandated by section 19 in Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. The Court below rejected the demurrer application on erroneous consideration of fact that already Rs.10,000,00/- had been realized by his client in the execution proceeding pending in the Court of Principal District Judge at LB Nagar, Hyderabad.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
