Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

M/S.Refex Energy Ltd vs M/S.Passive Infra Projects (P) Ltd on 3 December, 2018

Author: S.Vaidyanathan

Bench: S.Vaidyanathan

                                                             1

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED: 03.12.2018

                                                           CORAM:
                                    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
                                          Original Petition (D) No.9368 of 2017
                      M/s.Refex Energy Ltd.,
                      No.67, Bazulla Road,
                      T.Nagar,
                      Chennai 600 017.                                                ... Petitioner

                                                            vs.

                      M/s.Passive Infra Projects (P) Ltd.,
                      KD-87, 2nd Floor, Near Kohat Metro Station,
                      Pillor No.341, Pitampura,
                      New Delhi - 110 088.                                            ...Respondent

                            Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
                      1996 to set aside the Arbitral Award dated 05.12.2016 passed by the Sole
                      Arbitrator herein in Case No.68 of 2015.


                                   For Petitioner      :     Mr.Ramesh Kumar Chopra

                                   For Respondent      :     Mr.AR.Ramanthan




                                                           ORDER

Aggrieved by the Arbitral Award dated 05.12.2016 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in Case No.68 of 2015, the Petitioner has come up with the present Petition.

http://www.judis.nic.in 2

2. When this matter was taken up for hearing on 17.07.2018, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner undertakes to deposit 75% of the Award amount.

3. Today, the matter is listed under the caption 'for maintainability'. In terms of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (in short 'MSMED' Act), it is the condition precedent that the aggrieved person will have to deposit 75% of the Award amount.

4. The Petitioner has filed this Petition indirectly seeking waiver of the outstanding dues and the Registry has rightly listed the matter 'for maintainability'. There is no provision under the MSMED Act for waiver like the one available under the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 or under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. When such a provision is not available, this Court cannot legislate a provision for waiver and ask the Claimant to waive the outstanding dues or reduce the amount payable.

5. In this regard, the Apex Court in the case of Goodyear India Limited vs. Norton Intech Rubbers (P) Ltd. reported in 2012 (2) CTC 829, has held that the Court cannot waive the statutory deposit and at the most, the http://www.judis.nic.in 3 Court can extend the time or direct the Petitioner to pay the amount in instalments.

6. Taking note of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court and as the learned counsel for the Petitioner undertook that the Petitioner is willing to pay 75% of the Award amount in four instalments and that there is severe opposition from the other side, as requested by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner is directed to deposit 75% of the Award amount in four equal instalments and the first instalment shall be paid on or before 15.12.2018. On such deposit and filing of proof to that effect, Registry is directed to number the Original Petition.

7. It is made clear that if the Petitioner fails to pay 75% of the Award amount, as agreed, in four equal instalments, then the present Petition will stand automatically dismissed on the ground of maintainability, without being listed for further orders.

8. It is represented by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has paid Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) out of 75% of the Award amount. It is made clear that if the Petitioner had paid the said http://www.judis.nic.in 4 amount towards the Statutory Deposit, then the same can be adjusted towards the balance amount to be payable by the Petitioner.



                                                                                     03.12.2018
                      Index             :      Yes
                      Speaking Order    :      Yes

                      (aeb)




http://www.judis.nic.in
                          5


                                  S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.

                                                (aeb)




                              O.P.(D) No.9368 of 2017




                                          03.12.2018




http://www.judis.nic.in