LexPOWER MACHINES INDIA LIMITED versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 555 POWER MACHINES INDIA LIMITED v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5317 of2017) A APRIL 17,2017 B [ARUN MISHRA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.] Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 - ss.18, 21(3), 30 - Enterprises Facilitation Council Rules, 2006 ~ r.5 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - s.36(1) - Arbitral C award passed under 2006 Act directing appellant to pay awarded sum to respondent No.3 - Plea of appellant that r.5 of the 2006 Rules providing for recovery of amount for which an arbitral award is passed u/s.18(3) of 2006 Act, as arrears of land revenue is ultra vires and also repugnant to s.36(1) of 1996 Act as once the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure had been made applicable in D view of s.36, 1996 Act,· recovery could be initiated only u/Or.21, CPC and not in terms of s.18(3), 2006 Act - Held: Both s.36 of 1996 Act and r.5 of 2006 Rules intend to recover the amount, though by different procedures - Though, r.5 is inconsistent with the provisions contained in s.36(1) of 1996 Act which provides recovery E mechanism u/Or. 21 of CPC as a decree, but, in the matter of providing such remedies, it is open to legislate different remedies which may be inconsistent - Election of a remedy for recovery of the amount would depend upon the choice of the award-holder :-- No prejudice is caused to the judgment debtor - It is a question of electing a remedy - It is for the person to elect one of them and F there is no question of repugnancy in providing such remedy - Code of Civil Procedure cannot be the only remedy and it is open to legislate recovery mechanism without interference of Civil Court - Rule 5 has been right~y enacted to ensure speedy recovery and to ensure that small, micro and medium industries do not suffer - G Appellant's plea that r.5 is inconsistent and repugnant to the provisions of s.36 of 1996 Act, rejected - Appellant to deposit costs of Rs.50,0001- in Advocates-on-Record Welfare Trust - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or.21. 555 H 556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017) 6 S.C.R. A Remedy - Plural remedies - Validity of - Held: In case of remedial statutory provisions, plurality of remedies can always be provided, even if inconsistent - However, only one remedy has to be chosen - It is for the person to elect one of them and there is no question of repugnancy in providing such remedy. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Rule 5, Enterprises Facilitation Council Rules, 2006 has been framed in exercise of the power conferred by the State Government to frame the rules under section 30 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. In order to carry out the objective of the Act speedy recovery C mechanism has been provided under Rule 5 of the 2006 Rules by providing that amount awarded in an arbitral award can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. [Paras 9, 10 and 13) (562- B; 565-C] 1.2 Section 36 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on D the other hand provides that once the time for filing application to set aside an arbitral award under section 34 of the Act of 1996 has expired, the same shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the CPC as if it were a decree of the court. [Para 11) (564-B] E 1.3 No doubt Rule 5 of the 2006 Rules is inconsistent with F the provisions contained in section 36(1) of the Act of 1996 which provides recovery mechanism under Order 21 of CPC as a decree, but, in the matter of providing such remedies, it is open to legislate different remedies which may be inconsistent. It is a question of electing a remedy. Election of a remedy for recovery of the amount would depend upon the choice of the award-holder. Both the provisions i.e. section 36 of the Act of 1996 as well as Rule 5 of the Rules of 2006 intend to recover the amount though by different procedures. Intendment of provisions is same. There is no question of any prejudice being caused to the judgment G debtor. Providing of plural remedies is valid when two or more remedies are available to a person even if inconsistent, they are valid. It is for the person to elect one of them and there is no question of repugnancy in providing such remedy. Code of Civil Procedure cannot be. the only remedy. It is open to legislate recovery mechanism without interference of Civil Court. [Paras H 13, 14 and 17) [565-D-E; 566-F; 569-CJ POWER MACHINES INDIA LI
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.