FACTS OF THE CASE
- The petitioner has challenges the order dated 21.12.2002 passed by the learned district Judge.
- The present respondent raised objections to the award passed by the arbitrator under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking stay of implementation of the award.
- The learned district Judge allowed the application moved by the respondent under Section 19 Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 vide his order dated 21.12.2022, and stayed the execution of the award.
- Aggrieved by order, the petitioner has moved the petition before the High Court.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
- The respondent, who is the applicant submits that complying with Section 19 of the act, it had submitted 75% of the total awarded amount. It was contended that the present petitioner was proceeding with the implementation of the award dated 30.10.2021. It was prayed to put a stay on the execution.
- On the other hand, the present petitioner argued that the amount deposited by the present respondent was short of 75% of the awarded amount. It was submitted that the deposit was not in terms of the requirement of Section 19 of the Act and therefore the respondent was not entitled for the stay of the impugned award.
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT
- The High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the district Judge.
- Court observed that the learned district court in its impugned order faced a factual dispute. The court has not discussed whether the amount actually deposited by the respondent satisfied the 75% deposit condition or not.
- The Hon’ble Apex court in its decision Tirupati Steels VS M/s Shubh Industrial Components &Ors held that pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount under Section 19 of the Act is a mandatory requirement.
- Court directed the district court to deal with the matter for fresh decision.