IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA OMP(M) No. 502 of 2025 Decided on : 12.03.2026 Sudesh Chopra ...Petitioner. Versus M/S Jayanti Construction Chemical …..Respondent. Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Kiran Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondent: None. Romesh Verma, Judge (oral) OMP(M) No. 502 of 2025 The present application has been filed by the applicant/appellant for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The reasons as assigned in the application for not filing the appeal well in time, are plausible and reasonable. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, and since the averments made in the application are duly supported by an affidavit, the present application is allowed and delay in filing appeal is condoned. Application is allowed and disposed off. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Arbitration Appeal No. 96 of 2026 Appeal be registered. The present appeal arises out of the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla, whereby arbitration case filed by the present appellant for non compliance of the Court order, has been dismissed. A perusal of the record reveals that, in terms of the provisions of Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short, ‘M.S.M.E.D. Act), it is mandatory for the objector/applicant to deposit 75% of the amount in terms of the decree or award, as the case may be, as directed by such Court. Learned District Judge vide its order dated 08.05.2024 directed the present appellant to deposit 75% of the awarded amount before the said Court. However, from 08.05.2024 to 24.07.2025, no steps were taken by the appellant to comply with the said direction, in order to deposit 75 % of the awarded amount. The provision of Section 19 of the M.S.M.E.D Act, 2006 are clear, specific and unambiguous. Therefore, learned District Judge has rightly dismissed the arbitration 3 case filed by the appellant for non compliance of the court orders . 7. Consequently, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Romesh Verma) Judge March 12, 2026 (Nisha)