M.S. SAJITH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petitions are materially connected, filed by one and the same petitioner against the State Express Transport Corporation, Chennai challenging the awards passed by the Arbitrator under the provisions of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter called "Act, 2006" and "Act, 1996" respectively. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to pass a common judgment.

(2.) Petitioner supplied tread rubber to the State Express Transport Corporation, Chennai pursuant to the orders placed on 10.3.1999. According to the petitioner, it is stipulated in clause 12(a) of conditions of tender that, 95% of the payment due will be released within 45 days to the suppliers and the remaining 5% of the payment will be released only after ensuring that, supply of the particular lot has met the guaranteed kilometers as specified in the tender. As per the terms and conditions, 95% of the payment was made to the petitioner within the stipulated time. But as per the terms of the contract, no time limit has been prescribed for making performance assessment. Though the petitioner submitted numerous letters to the 3rd respondent, there was no response regarding the performance assessment and the payment of 5% of the balance amount due to the petitioner. Thereupon petitioner has raised claims by invoking section 18 of Act, 2006. However, the claims were rejected by the 2nd respondent as per the awards passed on 23.5.2014 holding that, the claims raised by the petitioner are for realisation of belated payment and also that the applications are not maintainable under Act, 2006. As per the claim, the supply were made during the years 1999 and 2000. But the original application for non-payment was filed only during the year 2012 i.e., after a long lapse of 12 years. Therefore, the original application is infested with serious lacunae. According to the Arbitrator, the letters purported to have been sent to the 3rd respondent by the petitioner was of the years 2001, 2002, 2006 and 2009, which are produced as evidence by the petitioner. However, the acknowledgements thereof were not produced for substantiating the claim. Therefore, it raised serious doubt about the genuineness. Thus the petitioner has failed to specify the date on which the supply was made. Therefore, the Arbitral Council found that, the application is not maintainable and hence dismissed with costs.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader as well as counsel appearing for 3rd respondent.