Bombay High Court
Atul Nemichand Dhadiwal And Anr vs Dhule Municipal Corporation ... on 5 May, 2021
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, M. G. Sewlikar
901-ca-5687-2020.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5687 OF 2020
IN FA/3701/2019 WITH CA/4932/2020 IN FA/3701/2019
ATUL NEMICHAND DHADIWAL AND ANR
VERSUS
DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DHULE AND ANR
...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Bajaj Anil S.
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. S.P. Brahme
...
CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN &
M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.
DATED : 05 th MAY, 2021
PER COURT:-
. Heard Mr. Bajaj, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr.
Brahme, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This civil application has been fled by the respondents
(original plaintifss for a direction that the related frst appeal should not be
heard without deposit of 75% of the entire decreetal amount.
3. It is contended that in terms of section 19 of the Micro, Small
and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, no application for
setting aside any decree, award or other order made either by the Micro
and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council 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
applicant (not being a suppliers has deposited with it seventy fve percent
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.
901-ca-5687-2020.odt
4. Mr. Bajaj has taken us to the Interest on Delayed Payments
to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 more
particularly to section 7 thereof and submits that section 7 of the said Act
is paramateria to section 19 of the 2006 Act. Referring to the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Snehadeep Structures Private Limited Vs.
Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited,
(2010) 3 SCC 34, he submits that without predeposit of 75% of the
decreetal amount, no such appeal is maintainable.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Brahme submits that when the suit
was instituted by the applicants in the year 2008, they had not invoked the
provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act,
2006. That apart, the related appeal has been fled by the appellants
under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with Order 41
thereof. He has referred to various provisions of the Micro, Small and
Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, more particularly to section
2(ns as well as section 8 thereof to contend that it is not correct that
applicants had rested their claim on the touchstone of the 2006 Act.
Referring to paragraph 25 of the impugned judgment, he submits that
appellants have deposited about Rs.95,00,000/-. According to him, if the
2006 Act is not made applicable, the amount in question would be in the
proximity of Rs.1.50 crores. Therefore, substantial amount has been
deposited by the appellants in the Court.
6. The question as to whether in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act,
2006 would be attracted or not would require a somewhat more detailed
hearing. We are of the view that the related appeal being of the year 2019
901-ca-5687-2020.odt
and the civil application being of the year 2020, it is not a ft case to be
taken up through the virtual mode in the midst of the pandemic. Hearing
of this civil application can await till physical hearing resumes.
7. In that view of the matter, list this matter as and when
physical hearing resumes.
8. Interim order passed earlier to continue.
[M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.] [UJJAL BHUYAN, J.]
Mujaheed//
