Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Haryana Pradesh Congress Committee vs First Newsmedia Pvt Ltd on 22 November, 2021
Bench: Indira Banerjee, J.K. Maheshwari
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.5491 of 2020)
Haryana Pradesh Congress Committee … Appellant
versus
First Newsmedia Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. … Respondents
O R D E R
As per the Office Report, service is not complete on the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 may be dropped. Accordingly, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are deleted from the array of parties at the risk and costs of the petitioner.
Leave granted.
This special leave petition is filed against the judgment and order dated 10.01.2020 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissing an appeal filed by the appellant herein under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the judgment dated 29.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Arbitration Case No. 58 of 2019. Signature Not Verified
By the judgment Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR Date: 2021.11.24 16:16:31 IST and order of the learned Single Judge impugned in the aforesaid Reason: appeal, the application of the appellant for setting aside an award 2 had been dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 19 of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short, the “MSMED Act”). Section 19 of the MSMED Act reads as follows :-
“19. Application for setting aside decree, award or order.—No application for setting aside any decree, award or other order made either by the Council itself or by any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services to which a reference is made by the Council, shall be entertained by any court unless the appellant (not being a supplier) has deposited with it seventy-five per cent. of the amount in terms of the decree, award or, as the case may be, the other order in the manner directed by such court:
Provided that pending disposal of the application to set aside the decree, award or order, the court shall order that such percentage of the amount deposited shall be paid to the supplier, as it considers reasonable under the circumstances of the case, subject to such conditions as it deems necessary to impose.” The learned Single Judge, in effect and substance, found that the arbitration case was not entertainable since the appellant had not deposited 75% of the amount awarded in terms of the impugned arbitral award.
Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.26,07,000/- which fell short of 75% of the awarded amount by about Rs.7,00,000/-. However, an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- and odd has been recovered from the bank account of the appellant in proceedings for execution of the award. The amount is, thus, well above 75% of the awarded amount.3
It may be true, as argued on behalf of the respondent, that 75% of the amount had not been deposited at the time of filing of the arbitration case. However, Section 19 of the MSMED Act provides that no application for setting aside any award, made either by the Council itself or by any institution or centre providing alternative disputes resolution services to which a reference has been made by the Council, is to be entertained by any court unless the appellant, not being a supplier, has deposited with it, 75% of the amount in terms of the award.
There is a bar to entertain an application unless the amount awarded or 75% thereof is deposited. There is no bar to filing of an application. Since over 75% of the amount awarded has been paid and/or released and/or kept in deposit, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders of the learned Single Bench and the Division Bench and to remit the application for setting aside of award to the Single Bench for decision in accordance with law.
The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
………………………………………………………,J.
(Indira Banerjee) ………………………………………………………,J.
(J.K. Maheshwari) New Delhi;
November 22, 2021.
4
ITEM NO.26 Court 8 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5491/2020
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-01-2020 in ARBA No. 15/2019 passed by the High Court Of Himachal Pradesh At Shimla) HARYANA PRADESH CONGRESS COMMITTEE Petitioner(s) VERSUS FIRST NEWSMEDIA PVT LTD & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No. 38431/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 103726/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 22-11-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Kaustubh Anshuraj, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. D.P. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Anurag Tandon, Adv.
Ms. Sonam Gupta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As per the Office Report, service is not complete on the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 may be dropped. Accordingly, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are deleted from the array of parties at the risk and costs of the petitioner. 5 Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA) (MATHEW ABRAHAM)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)