Shri.J.Krishna Kumar v. The Director

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CO/11/2026 Shri J. Krishna Kumar Vs.

The Director Mrs. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Bhawani .... for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the Opposite party February 05, 2026 [SR] Item No.5 This revisional application is directed against an order dated November 18, 2025, passed by the learned District Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands in Other Execution Case No. 01 of 2025.

It appears that the petitioner is covered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (in short, MSMED Act). It appears that he had rendered certain services/supplied goods to the respondents. Dispute arose regarding payment in regard thereto. Arbitration was held. An award in the sum of Rs. 26,44,574/- was passed in favour of the petitioner.

I am told that the award has been challenged by way of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by the respondent herein. However, there is no order of stay of operation of the award. The petitioner put the award in execution by filing Other Execution No. 01 of 2025. The learned executing Court allowed the execution application by directing payment of the principal sum and interest calculated only from the date of the award i.e. October 10, 2024. According to the learned Trial Court, section

16 of the MSMED Act provides that the interest has to be awarded from the date of the award.

The aforesaid interpretation or understanding of Section 16 of the MSME Act is incorrect. Section 16 reads as follows:- "16. Date from which and rate at which interest is payable.-Where any buyer fails to make payment of the amount to the supplier, as required under section 15, the buyer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement between the buyer and the supplier or in any law for the time being in force, be liable to pay compound interest with monthly rests to the supplier on that amount from the appointed day or, as the case may be, from the date immediately following the date agreed upon, at three times of the bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank."

"Appointed day" appearing in Section 16 has been defined in Section 2 (b) of the MSMED Act.

Hence, the order under review suffers from a patent irregularity/illegality warranting interference. The order is set aside.

The learned executing Court is directed to decide the execution application afresh, in accordance with law, after affording full opportunity to the parties to file pleadings and after granting an opportunity of hearing.

Needless to say, since the execution application has been resurrected by reason of this order, all documents filed by the parties before the executing Court hitherto shall also be considered by the learned Court.

CO/11/2026 is disposed of accordingly.

Parties to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

( Arijit Banerjee, J. )