# M/S Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., G.B. Nagar v. High Tech Tyre Retreaders Pvt. Ltd., Muzzafarnagar & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 501
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-25
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 479 of 2019
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-jai-prakash-associates-ltd-g-b-nagar-v-high-tech-tyre-retreaders-pvt-ltd-48209
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Sri Rameh Chandra Agrahari, Sri Mohit Kumar,
Sri Sumit Daga

A. Interpretation of Statute - Micro,
Small
and
Medium
Enterprises
Development Act, 2006 - Section 19 -
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 -
Section 34 - The jurisdiction of the District
Judge is dependent upon the condition of
pre-deposit of 75% of the sum of the
money due under the award. However, the
Supreme Court in Goodyear India case
indicated that the Statute gives freedom to
the Court to direct the condition of predeposit to be complied with,, if felt
necessary, by a deposit in installments. But
it is made clear that in whatever way the
condition of pre-deposit of 75% is complied
with, the condition to the extent of deposit
of 75% has to be complied with. (Para 10&
12)
Petition Disposed of. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

3 All. M/S Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., G.B. Nagar Vs. High Tech Tyre Retreaders Pvt. Ltd.,
 Muzaffarnagar & Anr.
501
additional statement of respondent no. 8
and 9 on the ground stated above.

20. Now coming to the judgment
relied upon counsel for the opposite party
in the case of Vidyawati (supra) the Apex
Court
has
dismissed
the
appeal
of
Vidyawati who was impleaded as legal heir
in a suit instituted by respondent-plaintiff,
in which the petitioner had filed additional
written statement claiming title and interest
in the property on the basis of Will said to
have been executed by Smt. Champawati,
which was dismissed by the trial Court by
order dated 06.08.1994 holding that it is not
open to the present applicant to assert her
own right or hostile title to the suit. It was
held that if legal representatives wants to
raise any individual point, which deceased
party could not raise, he must get himself
impleaded in his personal capacity or must
challenge the decree in separate suit. The
facts of the case of Vidyawati are different
from the present case inasmuch as in the
said case the objection against filing of
additional written statement filed by legal
representatives
of
deceased-defendant
which was contrary to the written statement
of deceased defendant, was taken by
plaintiff in the suit and in such view of the
fact the Apex Court held as above, but in
the present case the petitioners are
defendant and as they have to stand on their
own legs they cannot file any objection,
therefore, the objection by the petitioner
against additional written statement is not
maintainable. Thus, the judgment of Apex
Court passed in the case of Vidyawati is
not applicable in the present case.

21. For the reasons given above, the
writ petition is dismissed with no order as
to cost.
----------
(2022)03ILR A501
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 479 of 2019
(CIVIL)

M/S Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., G.B.
Nagar ...Petitioner
Versus
High Tech Tyre Retreaders Pvt. Ltd.,
Muzzafarnagar & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rohan Gupta, Sri Harshit Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rameh Chandra Agrahari, Sri Mohit Kumar,
Sri Sumit Daga

A. Interpretation of Statute - Micro,
Small
and
Medium
Enterprises
Development Act, 2006 - Section 19 -
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 -
Section 34 - The jurisdiction of the District
Judge is dependent upon the condition of
pre-deposit of 75% of the sum of the
money due under the award. However, the
Supreme Court in Goodyear India case
indicated that the Statute gives freedom to
the Court to direct the condition of predeposit to be complied with,, if felt
necessary, by a deposit in installments. But
it is made clear that in whatever way the
condition of pre-deposit of 75% is complied
with, the condition to the extent of deposit
of 75% has to be complied with. (Para 10&
12)
Petition Disposed of. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

1. Goodyear India Ltd. Vs Norton Intech
Rubbers Pvt. Ltd. & anr ( 2012) 6 SCC
345
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)
502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Against an award passed by the
U.P. State M & S.E.F. Council, Kanpur
exercising jurisdiction under Section 18 of
the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
Development Act, 2006 (Act No.27 of
2006) (for short, 'the Act of 2006), the
petitioner has made an application to the
District Judge under Section 19 of the Act
last
mentioned.
The petitioner
is
a
purchaser of goods supplied by respondent
no.1 and a claim for the unpaid price to the
tune of Rs.2,97,57,909/- was raised by the
suppliers. This claim was referred to the
arbitration of the U.P. State M & S.E.F.
Council, Kanpur, who passed an award
dated 04.10.2017. By the award aforesaid,
the petitioner was ordered to pay a total
sum of Rs.2,74,42,197/- together with
interest in terms of Section 16 of the Act of
2006, till realization.

2. The petitioner has challenged the
aforesaid award under Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act read with Section 19 of the
Act of 2006. Along with the application
seeking to set aside the award, an
application was made seeking exemption
from deposit of the decretal amount. The
learned District Judge has proceeded to
reject the application seeking exemption on
the ground that Section 19 postulates that
application to set aside an award cannot be
entertained unless 75% of the amount due
under the award has been deposited.
Section 19 of the Act of 2006 reads:

"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."

3. A perusal of Section 19 of the Act of
2006 makes it pellucid that the jurisdiction of
the District Judge to entertain objections
against an award postulates a deposit of 75%
of the sum due under the award. The
phraseology of the Statute is clear and leaves
no option with the District Judge. The
provision mandates that unless 75% of the
money due under the award is deposited, the
District Judge cannot assume jurisdiction and
proceed to hear objections under Section 19.

4. Now, before this Court under Article
227, the petitioner has challenged the award
dated 04.10.2017 passed by the U.P. State M
& S.E.F. Council, Kanpur as also the order
dated 17.12.2018 passed by the District Judge
refusing to exempt the petitioner from
making good the statutory deposit.

5. Mr. Rohan Gupta, learned Counsel
for the petitioner has been at pains to say
that there is illegality in the award that goes
to the root of the matter and, therefore, this
Court ought to exercise jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution in order to
do effective justice.

6. Mr. Mohit Kumar and Mr. Sumit
Daga, learned Counsel for respondents
submit that this petition is not maintainable
3 All. M/S Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., G.B. Nagar Vs. High Tech Tyre Retreaders Pvt. Ltd.,
 Muzaffarnagar & Anr.
503
because both the reliefs cannot be granted.
In their submission, the award cannot be
challenged before this Court, inasmuch as
the petitioner has a remedy under the
Statute before the District Judge.

7. Upon hearing the learned Counsel
for parties, this Court finds that there are
two parts to the challenge. The first is to
the award dated 04.10.2017, about which it
is evident that the petitioner has a statutory
remedy under Section 19 of the Act of
2006. In fact, the petitioner has availed that
remedy by preferring an application to the
learned District Judge. This part of the
challenge clearly is not maintainable in
view of the available alternative remedy,
already availed.

8. So far as the challenge to the order
of the learned District Judge is concerned,
this Court is of opinion that the District
Judge has no discretion in the matter to
exempt the petitioner from the statutory
condition of pre-deposit of 75% of the sum
of money due under the award. In fact, the
jurisdiction of the District Judge is
dependent upon the condition of predeposit inasmuch as the words employed in
the Statute are "shall be entertained by any
court unless the appellant (not being a
supplier) has deposited with it seventy-five
per cent". Therefore, in the absence of the
requisite pre-deposit of 75%, the objections
preferred by the petitioner cannot be
considered.

9. At this stage, learned Counsel for
the petitioner has invited the attention of
the Court to the holding of their Lordships
of the Supreme Court in Goodyear India
Ltd. v. Norton Intech Rubbers Private
Limited and Another, (2012) 6 SCC 345.
In the said case, it has been held:

"11.
Having
considered
the
submissions made, both on behalf of the
petitioner
and
on
behalf
of
the
respondents, we do not see any reason to
interfere with the views expressed, both by
the learned Single Judge, as also the
Division Bench with regard to Section 19
of the 2006 Act. It may not be out of place
to mention that the provisions of Section
19 of the 2006 Act, had been challenged
before the Kerala High Court in Kerala
SRTC v. Union of India[(2010) 1 KLT 65]
, where the same submissions were
negated and, subsequently, the matter also
came up to this Court, when the special
leave petitions were dismissed, with leave
to make the predeposit in the cases
involved, within an extended period of ten
weeks. We may also indicate that the
expression "in the manner directed by
such court" would, in our view, indicate
the discretion given to the court to allow
the predeposit to be made, if felt
necessary, in instalments."

10. The aforesaid position of the law
in no way whittles down condition of predeposit. All that is said there is that it is in
the discretion of the Court to direct the predeposit mandated by the Statute to be made
in the manner as the Court finds fit. The
decision in Goodyear India Ltd. indicates
that the Statute gives freedom to the Court
to direct the condition of pre-deposit to be
complied with, if felt necessary, by a
deposit in installments.

11. No doubt, while passing the
impugned order, the learned District Judge
has not examined the aforesaid possibility
or passed orders bearing in mind the
limited freedom that he has in directing in
what way the condition of pre-deposit is
complied with.
504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. In this view of the matter, it is
directed that the learned District Judge
shall pass appropriate orders bearing in
mind the totality of circumstances requiring
the
petitioner
to
comply
with
the
requirement of pre-deposit in such manner
as in the discretion of the Court may be
found appropriate. It is made clear that in
whatever way the condition of pre-deposit
of 75% is complied with, the condition to
the extent of deposit of 75% has to be
complied with. While passing the orders
regarding the manner in which the
condition of pre-deposit is to be complied
with, the learned District Judge shall take
into account, if there is any money paid
already under the award, which shall be
adjusted.

13. It is further directed that subject to
the petitioner complying with the terms of
the pre-deposit as directed by the District
Judge, the District Judge shall proceed with
and decide the application under Section 19
of the Act of 2006 within a period of six
months, after hearing both parties, in
accordance with law.

14. This petition is disposed of in
terms of the aforesaid orders.

15. Let a copy of this order be
communicated to the learned District
Judge, Kanpur Nagar by the Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2022)03ILR A504
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 7759 of 2021
(CIVIL)

Isht Deo Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Awadesh Kumar Malviya, Sri Sanjeev Kumar
Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shivam Yadav, Sri Sudhir Mehrotra

A. Interpretation of Statute - U.P. Urban
Planning and Development Act, 1973:
Section 18(6) - Any order that doesn't fall
strictly within the terms of the statutory
provision creating a right of appeal is not
appealable. (Para 10)
Writ Petition Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

1. Tamil Nadu Control Board Vs Sterile
Industries (India) Ltd. & ors. (2019) SCC OnLine
SC 221
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

The Court is convened via video
conferencing.

2. This petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution is directed against an order
of Mr. J.K. Dwivedi, the learned Additional
District Judge, Court No. 16, Kanpur Nagar
dated 22.09.2021, dismissing Misc. Appeal
No. 54 of 2019 and affirming an
order/notice
issued
by
the
Assistant
Secretary, Kanpur Development Authority,
Kanpur Nagar cancelling the petitioner's
allotment of a plot of land, with a direction
for refund of the advance consideration
deposited towards execution of a lease of
the said plot.