STERLING INDUSTRIES Vs. JAYPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, we find that the judgment of the High Court is liable to be set aside on one ground alone. The High Court entertained a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order of the learned District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar purportedly passed under Section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(for short, "the Arbitration Act") read with Section 19 of the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short, "the MSME Act"). This application was made to the District Judge by respondent No. 1- Jayprakash Associates Ltd. against a partial award made under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act. Such an application was not tenable vide Section 16 (6) of the Arbitration Act. Since such an application was not tenable, we fail to understand how in a writ petition filed against an order made by the District Judge in an untenable application, the High Court could have set aside the partial award. This is clearly contrary to law. This court in the case of SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2005) 8 SCC 618 in Paragraph No. 45 held as follows.

(2.) In these circumstances, we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court is liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly.

(3.) Shri S.B. Upadhyay, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1-Jayprakash Associates Ltd. consents to this order and seeks liberty to challenge the award as and when it is finally passed under the MSME Act in accordance with law. Such liberty is granted. However, there is some dispute about whether the final award has been passed. It is not necessary for us to adjudicate on this aspect.