In the realm of commercial disputes, the intersection of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006, has been a subject of legal scrutiny. A landmark judgment by India's Supreme Court in the case of M/s Silpi Industries vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Anr has shed light on whether the time constraints of the Limitation Act apply to arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act. This decision has significant implications for businesses within the MSME sector, which is a powerhouse of economic growth and innovation in India.
The MSMED Act was established to bolster the growth and competitiveness of micro, small, and medium enterprises, which are crucial contributors to India's economy. According to the Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, as of 2020, MSMEs contributed around 30% to India's GDP and about 48% to overall exports. The Act provides a legal framework to address the challenges faced by these enterprises, including delayed payments from buyers.
Under the MSMED Act, the National Board for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises was formed to oversee the sector's development. Enterprises are categorized into micro, small, and medium based on investment and turnover criteria, as outlined in Chapter III of the Act. Chapter V details the obligations of buyers regarding payments and the interest applicable in case of delays. If a buyer fails to make payment, the supplier can initiate recovery through conciliation and, if necessary, arbitration as per Sections 17 and 18.
The Limitation Act sets forth the time limits within which legal actions must be initiated, embodying the principle that legal remedies should be pursued with diligence. The Act's purpose is to limit litigation to a reasonable duration, ensuring legal certainty and respecting the rights acquired through long-standing practices or lost due to inaction. The Act's application to arbitration is specified in Section 43(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which states that the Limitation Act applies to arbitrations as it does to court proceedings.
The Supreme Court, in Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination Committee & Ors. v. Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd. & Ors. [(2016) 3 SCC 468], clarified that the Limitation Act does indeed apply to arbitration proceedings under the MSMED Act. This precedent, along with the explicit provisions of the MSMED Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, confirms that the time constraints of the Limitation Act govern disputes referred to arbitration under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act.
The Supreme Court's judgment in M/s Silpi Industries vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Anr reinforces the applicability of the Limitation Act to arbitration proceedings under the MSMED Act. This ensures that disputes are resolved in a timely manner, reflecting the objectives of both the MSMED Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to provide an efficient and expedited dispute resolution process for MSMEs.
For further reading on the MSMED Act and its provisions, you can visit the Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises website. To understand more about the Limitation Act and its implications, refer to the Indian Kanoon legal database.
Ineligible Arbitrator can be challenged even in Pre- 2015 cases and at any point of time
Supreme Court of India in its recent Judgment dated 04th January 2022 pronounced by the bench consisting of Hon’ble Justices Mr M.R.Shah and Mrs Nagarathna in the case of Ellora Paper Mills held that the mandate of the arbitrator can be challenged at any point of time during the proceedings, in view of Section 12(5) read with Seventh Schedule of the 1996 Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECOGNISES ENFORCEMENT OF EMERGENCY ARBITRATOR AWARD
Prior to 2010, if a party to an international arbitration requires to get an interim order, prior to formation of the arbitral tribunal, it was left with no other option other than approaching the appropriate National Court of the Respondent or the National Court having the jurisdiction over the subject matter covered under the application for interim order.
Dispute arising out of an Arbitration settlement must go for Arbitration
The Supreme Court of India vide its Judgment dated April 8, 2021, while disposing of an appeal arising out of an application seeking to appoint an arbitrator under section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, held that any dispute arising out of a frustrated settlement from an arbitration must go for arbitration
