MAHINDRA DEFENCE SYSTEMS LIMITED vs RANJANA INDUSTRIES THR. SOEL PROP. MR. SUNIL PALVE

Judgment text excerpt

ARA-47-2023-J-F.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 47 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17383 OF 2023 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 47 OF 2023 Mahindra Defence Systems Limited …Appellant Digitally signed by SHRADDHA SHRADDHA KAMLESH Versus KAMLESH TALEKAR TALEKAR Date: 2025.09.30 15:34:30 Ranjana Industries +0530 Through Sole Prop. Mr. Sunil Palve …Respondent Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate a/w. Assem Naphade, Mr. Aditya Khandeparkar and Gaurav Patole i/b Khandeparkar Law Office, for Appellant. Mr. Sunil Palve, Sole Proprietor present. CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. RESERVED ON: JULY 23, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON: SEPTEMBER 30, 2025 JUDGEMENT : Context and Factual Background: 1. This Appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) challenging an order and judgement dated June 15, 2023 (“Impugned Judgement”) passed by the Learned District Judge, Pune under Section 34 of the Act, which in turn had upheld an arbitral award dated June 16, 2022 (“ Impugned Award”) Page 1 of 26 September , 2025 Ashwini Vallakati/Shraddha ARA-47-2023-J-F.doc passed by the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSMED Act”). Factual Matrix: 2. The Appellant, Mahindra Defence Systems Ltd. (“ Mahindra”) and the Respondent, Ranjana Industries (“ Ranjana”), a proprietorship concern of Mr. Sunil Palve had a commercial relationship for supply of goods for use by Mahindra. Three purchase orders dated January 16, 2017; January 19, 2017 and January 20, 2017 (“ Purchase Orders”), and invoices relating to them lie at the heart of the dispute. Ranjana being a micro enterprise, the parties have a statutory arbitration agreement by virtue of Section