Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.23 seconds)Section 19 in The Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
The Interest On Delayed Payments To Small Scale And Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 23 December, 1986
He would also cite a judgment of the High Court of Kerala reported in 2010 (1) KLT 65 (K.S.R.T.C. ..vs.. Union of India) for the principle that the pre-deposit of 75% of the amount due under the award is mandatory. He would also submit that the provisions in Section 19 of MSMED Act would not give any discretionary power to the Court to waive the part of deposit of award amount at the time of preferring any Original Petition to set aside the award and it is mentioned in the Act that such power can be conferred only through the exercise of legislative competence. He would also submit that similar provisions have been made under SARFAESI Act in Section 18(1).
Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs Savitkibai Sopan Gujar An Dors on 16 April, 1999
He would also submit that the dictum laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 2213 (Kondiba Dagadu Kadam ..vs.. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Others) would show that such condition should have been strictly fulfilled before an appeal can be entertained. He would further submit in his argument that the right to appeal is neither an absolute right nor an ingredient of natural justice and if it is attached with any condition, it should have been complied with.
Vijay Prakash D. Mehta & Anr vs Collector Of Customs (Preventive), ... on 16 August, 1988
He would draw the support from the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1988 SC 2010 (Vijay Prakash D.Mehta & Jawahar D.Mehta ..vs.. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay) and AIR 1980 SC 2097 (Nandlal ..vs.. State of Haryana) for the said proposition. He would further argue that the award amount mentioned in Section 19 of the MSMED Act comprises both the principal and interest, and hence there was a direction in the award to pay the interest also. He would also submit that it is implicit from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2010 (3) SCC 34 cited supra, that the award amount contemplated under section 19 of the MSMED Act would contain the interest component also and the same is evident in the provisions itself. It was relied on the said judgment that the pre-deposit of the interest has been legislatively provided for to dissuade larger interest from using dilatory tactics to the total detriment of Small Scale buyers. He would also submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also held in the context of the interest payable by the buyers. The Apex Court had in unequivocal terms cautioned that such buyers cannot be allowed to challenge the arbitrator's award unless 75% of the pre-deposit of the award amount including interest is paid. He would, therefore, request the Court that the finding of the learned single Judge to direct the appellant to pay 75% of the accrued interest also, as part of the award amount within a time limit is quite in accordance with law and therefore, the appeal preferred by the appellant may be dismissed.
Anant Mills Co. Ltd vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 21 January, 1975
17. All these principles laid down would categorically go to show that the award amount as mentioned in Section 19 comprises both principal as well as interest and not the principal alone. Further, it was ordered at the time of admitting the O.P.No.888 of 2010 that the 75% of the principal amount was directed to be deposited as condition precedent in accordance with Section 19 of the Act. As rightly argued by the first respondent / party-in-person that the legislative intention to impose certain conditions for preferring the appeal cannot be waived by the Court by showing concession. This has been very strictly laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1999 SC 2213 cited supra and various plenthero of judgments reported in AIR 1975 SC 1234 (Anant Mills Co., Ltd., ..vs.. State of Gujarat), AIR 1992 SC 2279 (Shyam Kishore and others ..vs.. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another).
Shyam Kishore And Others vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And ... on 3 September, 1992
17. All these principles laid down would categorically go to show that the award amount as mentioned in Section 19 comprises both principal as well as interest and not the principal alone. Further, it was ordered at the time of admitting the O.P.No.888 of 2010 that the 75% of the principal amount was directed to be deposited as condition precedent in accordance with Section 19 of the Act. As rightly argued by the first respondent / party-in-person that the legislative intention to impose certain conditions for preferring the appeal cannot be waived by the Court by showing concession. This has been very strictly laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1999 SC 2213 cited supra and various plenthero of judgments reported in AIR 1975 SC 1234 (Anant Mills Co., Ltd., ..vs.. State of Gujarat), AIR 1992 SC 2279 (Shyam Kishore and others ..vs.. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another).