CROMPTON GREAVES LTD. Vs. ANNAPURNA ELECTRONICS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is preferred challenging the order dated 20.09.2013 passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore in Arbitration Suit No.44/2008 dismissing the suit for non-compliance of the order dated 20.08.2013 passed in W.P. No.12465/2010 by this Court.

(2.) The petitioner is a Public Limited Company registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The petitioner is carrying on the business inter alia, of developing, manufacturing and marketing Telecom products. Respondent No.1 M/s. Annapurna Electronics, a proprietary firm situated at Bangalore, is carrying on the business inter alia of providing telecom related services and has its Offices at various strategic locations for the purposes of servicing of C-Dot Cards and test equipment procured from different officers of CDOT and reputed manufacturers. By an agreement dated 14th May, 2004 respondent No.1 agreed to provide services to the petitioner by way of providing its infrastructure and personnel to support the petitioner in execution of the Work Order dated 29th April, 2002 awarded by M/s. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited in favour of the petitioner. For the services so rendered, the petitioner was required to reimburse 76% of the revenue collected by respondent No.1. However, even before the BSNL Work Order could be executed in full, respondent No.1 stopped providing the necessary services. Thus disputes arose between the parties relating to their respective rights and obligations under the said agreement dated 14th May, 2004. The respondent claims that it is a "Supplier" under the provisions of the repealed Act called "the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993. Accordingly, the 1st respondent initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 9 of the said repealed Act by approaching the Karnataka Industry Facilitation Council. The said Act was repealed from 2nd October, 2006 and substituted by Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'MSMED' Act).

(3.) In the said proceedings, the petitioner was called upon to file its written statement, which was duly filed. The petitioner raised a specific stand in the said objection that the 1st respondent was not covered either under repealed Act or under the new Act. However, overruling the said objection an award came to be passed on 14th July, 2008.