Bombay High Court
M/S Creative Entrepreneurs Llp. Delhi ... vs M/S. Snd Limited, Nagpur on 23 July, 2018
Author: S.B.Shukre
Bench: S.B.Shukre
55-wp-837-18judg 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.837 OF 2018
PETITIONER :- M/s Creative Entrepreneurs LLP
An Limited Liability Partnership Firm
Subsequent to conversion from a
partnership Firm under the statutory
provision of LLP Act. Having its registered
office at A-3/332, Sector-8 , Rohini, Delhi-
110085
Through its Authorised Signatory Mr.(Gagan
Aggarwal
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT :- M/s. SND Limited,
A Company Registered under The
Companies Act, 1956 Having its office at :
Block No.302, 3rd Floor, S.K.Tower, Nelson
Square, Byramji Town, Nagpur-440013
through its Director
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.Sahil S.Dewani, counsel for the petitioner
Mr.A.S.Baghel, counsel for the respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : S.B.SHUKRE, J.
DATE : 23.07.2018. Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2018 23:14:49 ::: 55-wp-837-18judg 2/5 O R A L J U D G M E N T 1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.
3. The law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court is that '' the word ''entertainment'', in the context of filing of an appeal, must be interpreted to mean the occasion when the appeal filed by a party is taken up for consideration for the first time.
4. The law in this regard, has been laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lakshmi Rattan Engineering Works Ltd..Vs. Asstt. Commr. Sales Tax, Kanpur and anr. Reported in (1968) 1 SCR 505 .
5. This law has also been followed by learned single judge of this Court in case of Ravindranath Ge Medicate Associate Pvt. Ltd. Chennai ..Vs.. Clean Coats Pvt. Ltd. Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2018 23:14:49 ::: 55-wp-837-18judg 3/5 Ambernath, reported in 2016(6) Mh.L.J.49.
6. In the present case, as admitted by the parties, the application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 r/w Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 was filed on 6.9.2016 and on that very date, the application came up for consideration for the first time before the Commercial Court. On that date, the Commercial Court, issued notice to the opponent. On that day, admittedly, 75% of the amount of the Award, in terms of the award, was not deposited, although it is the requirement of Section 19 of the Act of 2006. An application however, was moved seeking grant of further time for complying with the requirement of section 19 of the Act of 2006. This application was later on disposed of by the Commercial Court on 16.11.2017 and it is this order, which is under challenge in the present petition.
7. As, the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act r/w Section 19 of the Act, 2006 together with the application for extension of time to comply with the requirement of Section Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2018 23:14:49 ::: 55-wp-837-18judg 4/5 19 was filed within limitation and simultaneously, I do not see any illegality having committed by the Commercial Court in rejecting the contention that the requirement of Section 19 of the Act of 2006 was not met with by the respondents while filing the application seeking setting aside of the arbitral award.
8. Now only question that remains is as to whether or not the quantum of the awarded amount should have been duly considered by the Commercial Court, while imposing conditions.
9. I think the answer would have to be given by stating that this amount should have been more than the amount so determined by the Commercial Court. This amount fixed by the Commercial Court, it is not in dispute , does not include interest awarded. The requirement of Section 19 of the Act of 2006, however, is that the principal amount as well as interest accrued on the principal amount in terms of the arbitral award must be taken into consideration for computation of the 75% of the amount. Therefore, I am of the view that to this extent, the impugned order would have to be modified.
Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2018 23:14:49 ::: 55-wp-837-18judg 5/5
10. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The respondent is directed to also deposit 75% of the amount of interest calculated in terms of the award from 6.9.2016 till 16.11.2017 within three months in three equal installments to be deposited during the span of next three months starting from the month of August 2018.
11. The impugned order stands modified as stated above.
12. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
JUDGE Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 06/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2018 23:14:49 :::