<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<root>
    <author>ENA</author>
    <category>MSME</category>
    <date>2024-02-16 16:42:11</date>
    <fulldesc>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;New Delhi, Feb 16 (KNN)&lt;/strong&gt; The Delhi High Court ruled that challenging arbitration awards under the MSME Act via writ petitions (under Article 226/227) is impermissible without first resorting to the statutory remedy provided in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (A&amp;amp;C Act).&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The bench, led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, stressed that this recourse is subject to the pre-deposit requirement under Section 19 of the MSME Development Act.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (the Appellant) appealed the dismissal of its writ petition by a Single Bench of the High Court against an award issued by the Delhi Arbitration Centre.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The Single Bench maintained that courts should abstain from entertaining petitions solely due to pre-deposit conditions when a dispute resolution mechanism is available under the Arbitration Act.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;In addressing challenges to awards resulting from arbitral proceedings under the MSMED Act, the High Court referenced the Supreme Court decision in M/s India Glycols Limited and Another v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Medchal   Malkajgiri and Others.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The court underscored that petitions filed under Article 226/227 should not be entertained, as Section 18 of the MSMED Act provides for a statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. It emphasised that bypassing the pre-deposit requirement under Section 19 of the MSMED Act through such petitions would undermine the legislative intent.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The High Court disapproved of the view held by some High Courts that any order by the arbitral tribunal could be corrected under Article 226 or 227.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;It advocated for minimal judicial intervention during arbitration, suggesting parties wait until the award is pronounced, except in cases where a right of appeal is available under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(KNN Bureau)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
</fulldesc>
    <id>36729</id>
    <link>https://knnindia.co.in/news/newsdetails/msme/use-section-34-of-arbitration-act-for-msme-award-challenge-not-writ-petition-delhi-hc</link>
    <pubDate>2024-02-16 16:42:11</pubDate>
    <source>knnindia.co.in</source>
    <title>Use Section 34 Of Arbitration Act For MSME Award Challenge; Not Writ Petition: Delhi HC</title>
</root>
