[ad_1]
Supreme Court – Daily Orders
M/S Sonali Power Equipments Pvt. Ltd vs Chairman, Maharashtra State … on 17 July, 2025
ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.7 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 6912-6920/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-10-2023
in CA No. 1/2018 20-10-2023 in CA No. 2/2018 20-10-2023 in CA No.
3/2018 20-10-2023 in CA No. 4/2018 20-10-2023 in CA No. 5/2018 20-
10-2023 in CA No. 6/2018 20-10-2023 in CA No. 7/2018 20-10-2023 in
CA No. 8/2018 20-10-2023 in CA No. 9/2018 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur]
M/S SONALI POWER EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
CHAIRMAN, MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY
BOARD, MUMBAI & ORS. Respondent(s)
[ HEARD BY : HON. PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND HON. JOYMALYA
BAGCHI, JJ. ]
Date : 17-07-2025 These petitions were called on for pronouncement
of judgment today.
For Petitioner(s) :Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Prashant Pakkhidey, Adv.
Mr. Surjendu Sankar Das, AOR
Mr. Manav Gill, Adv.
Ms. Annie Mittal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Shikhil Suri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Udit Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Amarendra Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Vyom Chaturvedi, Adv.
Ms. Pragya Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Sneha Singh, Adv.
Ms. Nishtha Goel, Adv.
Ms. Deepshikha Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Prachi Gupta, Adv.
M/S. Udit Kishan And Associates, AOR
1. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha pronounced the
judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon’ble Mr.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2025.07.17
15:52:37 IST
Reason:
2. Leave granted.
3. The Civil Appeals are partly allowed in terms of the signed
reportable judgment. Paragraph nos. 51-54 of the Judgment read as
under:-
“51. On considering the statutory provisions of
the MSMED Act, the ACA, and the Limitation Act,
the precedents of this Court, and on the basis of
the above reasoning, we have answered the issues
arising in the present appeals as follows:
i. The Limitation Act does not apply to
conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2) of
the MSMED Act. A time-barred claim can be
referred to conciliation as the expiry of
limitation period does not extinguish the right
to recover the amount, including through a
settlement agreement that can be arrived at
through the conciliatory process.
ii. The Limitation Act applies to arbitration
proceedings under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act.
The applicability of the provisions of ACA to
such arbitrations is determined as per Section
18(3) and other provisions of the MSMED Act, as
these are special laws, rather than by Section
2(4) of the ACA, which is under a general law.
This is in addition to the reasoning provided in
Silpi Industries (supra). Further, the extension
of the limitation period on the basis of
disclosure under Section 22 of the MSMED Act must
be examined on a case-to-case basis.
52. We therefore partly allow the present appeals
arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6912-6920/2024 and
set aside the impugned order dated 20.10.2023
arising in Commercial Appeal Nos. 1-9/2018 before
the High Court of Bombay Bench at Nagpur to the
extent of applicability of the Limitation Act to
conciliation proceedings under the MSMED Act. We
have upheld the High Court’s decision on the
applicability of the Limitation Act to
arbitration proceedings under the MSMED Act for
the reasons provided hereinabove.
53. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of.
54. No order as to costs.”
(KAPIL TANDON) (NIDHI WASON)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed Reportable Judgment is placed on the file.)
[ad_2]
Source link