#Section 18

The Delhi High Court ruled that MSME registration under Section 18 operates prospectively, so pre-registration claims are not maintainable before the Facilitation Council. A party cannot abandon arbitration and later obtain MSME registration to invoke MSEFC jurisdiction - this constitutes forum hunting. Territorial jurisdiction of MSEFCs is also strict, preventing forum shopping.

The Uttarakhand High Court ruled that the third proviso of Section 18(1) SARFAESI Act applies only to borrowers, so a non-borrower cannot be forced to deposit 25 % of the debt to file an appeal. This removes an unlawful pre-deposit condition for third-party appellants and clarifies the filing fee structure for all SARFAESI appeals.

An ICC email declaring a complaint lacks a sexual element is deemed a ‘recommendation’ under Section 13(2) of the POSH Act, permitting a Section 18 appeal. The Bombay HC set aside the Industrial Court’s order, remanding the case for fresh consideration and confirming the right to appeal.

The Supreme Court has set aside the Commercial Court’s dismissal and referred the challenge to a larger bench, ordering a constitutional review of the 10 % pre-deposit security clause in arbitration agreements. The referral signals that such clauses may breach Article 14’s equality guarantee and conflict with Section 18 of the Arbitration Act, impacting contractors and public-sector projects.

The Delhi High Court affirmed that a trademark’s earlier filing date under Section 18 overrides any later party’s prior-market-use defence under Section 34, confirming the registrar’s grant of ‘20-20’ to the first applicant. This clarifies that prior use does not defeat an earlier filing, guiding businesses on the primacy of registration dates in trademark disputes.

Bombay High Court rules that the 50% pre-deposit requirement under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act applies universally to all appeals against DRT orders, including those challenging condonation of delay. The judgment overturns prior DRAT orders waiving the deposit and declares earlier contrary rulings per incuriam, reinforcing strict compliance with statutory pre-deposit norms for borrowers and secured creditors.

The Kerala High Court holds that where the Debt Recovery Tribunal has not yet determined the exact debt amount, the pre-deposit required to file an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act must be based on the secured creditor’s claimed amount, not an arbitrary or lower figure. This ensures creditors cannot be unfairly delayed in enforcement while protecting borrowers from speculative deposits, setting a clear benchmark for appellate compliance across Indian banks and financial institutions.

Jharkhand High Court rules that knowledge of the victim's Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe status is sufficient to invoke Section 18's absolute bar on anticipatory bail, regardless of the consensual nature of the relationship. The judgment reinforces that offences punishable with 10+ years imprisonment under the Act attract statutory presumption, limiting judicial discretion in bail matters.

Gauhati HC ruled that industrial tribunals cannot dismiss reference proceedings solely due to procedural delays, emphasizing the statutory duty to adjudicate disputes on merits. The judgment reinforces that employers cannot evade adjudication by exploiting delays, ensuring workers' rights to fair dispute resolution under labour laws.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that the absolute bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not apply unless there is a prima facie caste-based allegation. The court granted bail where the SC/ST Act was added retrospectively to the FIR without any evidence of caste-motivated offense, setting a precedent for bail jurisprudence under the Act.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail cannot be granted under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act for serious offences, even where financial compromise documents exist. The ruling underscores the statutory bar's absolute nature, prioritizing investigation over bail in atrocity cases.

Bombay High Court rules that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applies only if the FIR discloses a prima facie caste-based atrocity. In this case, the absence of caste-related abuse in the allegations led the court to grant anticipatory bail, reinforcing that the Act's stringent provisions are not triggered without explicit evidence of caste motivation.

Punjab & Haryana HC ruled that anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act cannot be denied under Section 18 without prima facie evidence of caste-based humiliation. The court emphasized that mere allegations of assault or threats, without specific caste-related intent, do not trigger the bail bar, ensuring fair application of the Act.

The Bombay High Court has held that registration under the MSMED Act does not bar MSMEs from pursuing ad hoc arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 18's remedy is discretionary, not mandatory, empowering businesses to choose faster dispute resolution without forfeiting substantive rights under contract law.

Bombay High Court holds that anticipatory bail is barred under Section 18 of SCST Act only if caste-based abuse occurs in public view, clarifying evidentiary threshold for invoking the bar.