Primemover Mobility Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanmarg Infra Tech Private Limited, 2026
It clarifies that appeal under Section 37(1)(c) is not restricted; it includes dismissals based on procedural defaults.
Judgement Details
Court
Delhi High Court
Date of Decision
8 January 2026
Judges
Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
Primemover filed a Section 34 application challenging an arbitral award.
-
District Judge dismissed the Section 34 application, citing failure to file Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) of 75% of the award amount under Section 19 of MSMED Act.
-
Delay occurred due to the bank requiring a signature from the Registrar/Prothonotary & Senior Master to prepare the FDR.
-
Primemover informed the District Judge that the FDR, along with interest, had been prepared and debited by the bank.
-
Respondent argued that appeal under Section 37(1)(c) was not maintainable because the order did not refuse to set aside the award.
-
Appellant contended the delay was not mala fide and sought restoration of the Section 34 application.
Issues
-
Whether Section 37(1)(c) of the A&C Act applies only to specific sub-sections, or extends to the entire Section 34?
-
Whether a dismissal of a Section 34 application on grounds of non-deposit of FDR can be challenged under Section 37(1)(c) of the A&C Act?
-
Whether the District Judge should have allowed Primemover further time to comply with deposit directions under Section 19(1) of the MSMED Act?
Judgement
-
Section 37(1)(c) applies to the entire Section 34, not limited to specific sub-sections.
-
Dismissal of a Section 34 application on grounds such as limitation or non-compliance with deposit directions falls within the ambit of Section 37(1)(c).
-
District Judge’s dismissal of the Section 34 application was set aside.
-
Application under Section 34 restored, subject to Primemover depositing the FDR of 75% of awarded amount with interest.
-
Delay in deposit was not mala fide; further time should have been granted.
Held
-
Section 37(1)(c) covers appeals against dismissal of Section 34 applications, irrespective of sub-section.
-
Applicants should be given a reasonable opportunity to comply with deposit requirements under Section 19 of MSMED Act.
-
Restoration of Section 34 application subject to compliance ensures justice and procedural fairness.
Analysis
-
It clarifies that appeal under Section 37(1)(c) is not restricted; it includes dismissals based on procedural defaults.
-
Reinforces principle of fair opportunity in arbitration-related matters.
-
Aligns with precedent in Chintels India Ltd. v. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd., [2021 INSC 76], expanding the scope of Section 37(1)(c).
-
Ensures MSMED deposit requirements are met without penalizing parties for procedural or banking delays.
-
Strengthens the enforcement of arbitral awards while balancing the rights of parties.