Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.83 seconds)
M/S Ntpc Bhel Power Projects Limited vs M/S Century Crane Engineering Pvt Ltd on 14 October, 2024
cites
Section 8 in The Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
M/S. Silpi Industries vs Kerala State Road Transport ... on 29 June, 2021
In view of the law laid down in these judgments, the MSMEF
Council did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the request made
by the Respondent/Claimant for Conciliation or to refer the
disputes to the learned Sole Arbitrator since the Respondent is not
covered under the provisions of MSMED Act. The appointment of
the learned Sole Arbitrator, in the facts of the present case by
Conciliation Council is thus bad in law. Hence, the entire
arbitration proceedings are vitiated and the impugned award
culminating out of the Arbitration proceedings is therefore void ab
initio and liable to be set aside.
Gujarat State Civil Supplies ... vs Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Unit 2) on 31 October, 2022
34. Following the said judgment of Silpi Industries vs. Kerala
State Road Transport Corporation(Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation vs.
Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) in para 33 held that the party
who was not supplier as per sub-section-2 (n) of MSMED Act on
the date of entering into the contract could not seek any benefit as a
supplier under MSMED Act. The party cannot become a Micro &
Small Enterprise or a supplier to claim the benefit under MSMED
Act by submitting a memorandum to obtain registration subsequent
to entering into a contract and supply of goods or services.
Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Subhra Mukherjee & Anr. C vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors on 8 March, 2000
28. As per Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 burden of
proving a fact always lies upon a person who asserts it as has been
held in Anil Rishi vs. Gurbux Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558, Rangamal
vs. Kuppuswami, (2011) 12 SCC 120 and Subhadra Mukherjee vs.
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (2000) 3 SCC 312 . The onus to prove that
the Respondent was registered under MSMED Act, 2006 was on
the Respondent. In the facts of the present case, it was the positive
assertion of the Respondent that the Respondent is registered under
the provisions of MSMED Act, 2006. However, the Respondent
neither produced any document on record before the learned Sole
Arbitrator nor proved that the Respondent was registered under the
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
provisions of MSMED Act, 2006 at the date of contract or during
Digitally signed
by NEERA the supply. The Respondent also referred to mail dated 20.11.2013
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2024.10.14
14:35:53 +0530
CS (Comm) 70/19 M/s NTPC Bhel Power Vs. M/s Century Crane Page 25 of 41
sent by claimant to the Petitioner herein and refers to same as
acknowledgment on part of Petitioner. The mail contains a
statement as "We are a SSI vendor, under MSMED Registration
no. 00017(MSMED Certificate Enclosed). The attachment has
been perused and it is noticed that the said document is not a
registration under the provisions of MSMED Act, 2006. Even the
Respondent never pleaded before the learned Sole Arbitrator that
the said acknowledgment is a registration certificate.
Ge T&D; India Limited vs Reliable Engineering Projects And ... on 15 February, 2017
"Though the appellant claims the benefit of provisions under
MSMED Act, on the ground that the appellant was also
supplying as on the date of making the claim, as provided
under Section 8 of the MSMED Act, but same is not based
on any acceptable material. The appellant, in support of its
case placed reliance on a judgment of the Delhi High Court
in the case of GE T&D India Ltd. v. Reliable Engineering
Projects and Marketing, but the said case is clearly
distinguishable on facts as much as in the said case, the
supplies continued even after registration of entity under
Section 8 of the Act. In the present case, undisputed position
is that the supplies were concluded prior to registration of
supplier. The said judgment of Delhi High Court relied on
by the appellant also would not render any assistance in
support of the case of the appellant. In our view, to seek the
benefit of provisions under MSMED Act, the seller should
have registered under the provisions of the Act, as on the
date of entering into the contract. In any event, for the
supplies pursuant to the contract made before the registration
of the unit under provisions of the MSMED Act, no benefit
can be sought by such entity, as contemplated under
MSMED Act.
M/S Shanti Conductors(P) Ltd. & Anr vs Assam State Electricity Board & Ors on 31 August, 2016
While interpreting the provisions of Interest
on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary
Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993, this Court, in the
judgment in the case of Shanti Conductors Pvt. Ltd. v.
Assam State Electricity Board has held that date of supply of
goods/services can be taken as the relevant date, as opposed
to date on which contract for supply was entered, for
applicability of the aforesaid Act. Even applying the said
ratio also, the appellant is not entitled to seek the benefit of
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
the Act. There is no acceptable material to show that, supply
of goods has taken place or any services were rendered,
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
subsequent to registration of appellant as the unit under
Date:
2024.10.14
14:36:06 +0530
MSMED Act, 2006. By taking recourse to filing
CS (Comm) 70/19 M/s NTPC Bhel Power Vs. M/s Century Crane Page 28 of 41
memorandum under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act,
subsequent to entering into contract and supply of goods and
services, one cannot assume the legal status of being
classified under MSMED Act, 2006, as an enterprise, to
claim the benefit retrospectively from the date on which
appellant entered into contract with the Respondent. The
appellant cannot become micro or small enterprise or
supplier, to claim the benefits within the meaning of
MSMED Act 2006, by submitting a memorandum to obtain
registration subsequent to entering into the contract and
supply of goods and services. If any registration is obtained,
same will be prospective and applies for supply of goods and
services subsequent to registration but cannot operate
retrospectively. Any other interpretation of the provision
would lead to absurdity and confer unwarranted benefit in
favour of a party not intended by legislation."
Perkins Eastman Architects Dpc vs Hscc (India) Limited on 26 November, 2019
In
the facts of the present case, since the sole discretion was vested
with the Competent Authority of the Petitioner to appoint a sole
arbitrator for reference of disputes, in view of the judgment of
Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and Ors. Vs. HSCC (India)
Ltd.,2019(6)ARBLR132(SC) passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court
holding that one party is not entitled to appoint an arbitrator
without the consent of the other party and when there is a dispute,
the only remedy available with either of the parties is to approach
the concerned High Court by filing a Petition under Section 11 of
the Arbitration & Conciliation Act for appointment of an
independent Arbitrator, the only remedy available with the
Respondent was to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for
appointment of an independent sole Arbitrator.