MSME Arbitration: Supreme Court Rules 75% Pre-Deposit Mandatory for Appeals

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority v. M/s Aska Equipments Limited, addressed a crucial issue concerning arbitration awards under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act, 2006). The case, registered as Civil Appeal No. 6252 of 2021, arose from an appeal challenging the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 19 of the MSME Act. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated October 8, 2021, delivered by M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, ruled that the deposit of 75% of the awarded amount before filing an appeal is mandatory and not discretionary.

Background of the Case

The case originated when a dispute arose between the Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority (the appellant) and M/s Aska Equipments Limited (the respondent) regarding payment for goods supplied. The dispute was adjudicated by the Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the MSME Act, 2006, which awarded the respondent an amount of Rs. 10,50,53,387 (Rs. 10.5 crore).

The appellant, aggrieved by the award, filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the award. However, as per Section 19 of the MSME Act, an appellant must deposit 75% of the awarded amount before the application can be entertained. The appellant sought a waiver of this requirement, which was rejected by the Additional District Judge (Commercial), Dehradun. Subsequently, the appellant challenged this ruling in the Uttarakhand High Court, which upheld the trial court’s decision, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Question

The central issue before the Supreme Court was:

Whether the requirement to deposit 75% of the awarded amount under Section 19 of the MSME Act, 2006 is mandatory or discretionary?

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant, represented by Ajay Kumar, contended that:

The High Court and the trial court erred in holding that 75% of the awarded amount must be deposited before the appeal could be entertained.
The appellant, being a government entity, should be granted relief from the pre-deposit requirement.
The courts should have discretion to determine the deposit amount on a case-to-case basis.
In the present case, the appellant had already deposited Rs. 2.5 crore as directed by the Supreme Court during the initial appeal hearing.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent, represented by its legal counsel, countered that:

The requirement under Section 19 of the MSME Act is absolute and mandatory, with no discretion left to the courts.
The legislative intent behind the MSME Act was to provide swift justice to small businesses, ensuring timely recovery of dues.
The Supreme Court’s previous ruling in Goodyear India Limited v. Norton Intech Rubbers Private Limited (2012) clearly held that the pre-deposit requirement is mandatory.
The phrase “in the manner directed by such court” in Section 19 only allows the court to permit installment-based deposits, not to waive the requirement.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court, after examining the case and previous rulings, upheld the pre-deposit requirement. The key findings were:

The language of Section 19 is clear and leaves no room for discretion in waiving the deposit.
The phrase “in the manner directed by such court” refers to the court’s power to allow installment payments but not to waive the deposit.
The MSME Act is a special legislation enacted to protect small enterprises, ensuring that payments are not unduly delayed.
The appellant’s failure to comply with the deposit requirement justified the trial court and High Court’s decision to reject their appeal.

Key Extract from the Supreme Court Judgment

“The requirement of deposit of 75% of the amount in terms of the award as a pre-deposit is mandatory. However, at the same time, considering the hardship which may be projected before the appellate court, the court may allow the pre-deposit to be made in installments.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the requirement of 75% pre-deposit for appeals under the MSME Act.
The earlier order requiring the deposit of Rs. 2.5 crore was allowed to continue for the time being, but the appellant was directed to deposit the remaining amount as per the statute.
The ruling in Goodyear India Limited v. Norton Intech Rubbers Private Limited (2012) was reaffirmed, confirming that courts have no discretion to waive the pre-deposit.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces the stringent payment obligations under the MSME Act, ensuring that micro, small, and medium enterprises receive timely payments. The decision:

Prevents unnecessary litigation by discouraging frivolous appeals.
Ensures faster resolution of payment disputes for small enterprises.
Clarifies that government entities are not exempt from the pre-deposit requirement.
Strengthens the MSME sector’s ability to enforce payments without protracted legal battles.

Petitioner Name: Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority.
Respondent Name: M/s Aska Equipments Limited.
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice A.S. Bopanna.
Place Of Incident: Dehradun, Uttarakhand.
Judgment Date: 08-10-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: gujarat-state-disast-vs-ms-aska-equipments-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-08-10-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Arbitration Awards
See all petitions in Commercial Arbitration
See all petitions in Enforcement of Awards
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by A. S. Bopanna
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Corporate and Commercial Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Corporate and Commercial Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Corporate and Commercial Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Corporate and Commercial Cases Category