SANGANER ENVIRO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Arjun R. Sheth, appearing for respondent No.3 has submitted that this writ petition is required to be rejected in view of the order passed by the Division Bench dtd. 25/10/2021 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.939 of 2021, wherein petitioner has challenged the interim order passed by this Court.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Harsh K. Raval, appearing for petitioner has placed reliance on the provisions of Sec. 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act , 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2006'), provides for reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. It is submitted that as per the provisions of Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 18 of the Act of 2006, on receipt of a reference under sub-sec. (1), the Council shall either itself conduct conciliation in the matter or seek the assistance of any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services by making a reference to such an institution or centre, for conducting conciliation and the provisions of Ss. 65 to 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1996') shall apply to such a dispute. It is further submitted that sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 18 provides that where the conciliation initiated under sub-sec. (2) is not successful and stands terminated without any settlement between the parties, the Council shall either itself take up the dispute for arbitration or refer it to any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services for such arbitration and the provisions of the Act of 1996 shall then apply to the dispute as if the arbitration was in pursuance of an arbitration agreement referred to in sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 7 of that Act. It is therefore, submitted that once the conciliation proceedings were initiated by the Council, it was not permissible to it to have acted as an arbitrator invoking the provisions of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 18 of the Act of 2006, and thus, the impugned orders dtd. 26/11/2020 (Annexure-5, at page-54), requires to be set aside.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Sheth, appearing for respondent No.3 has submitted that in fact, the prayers made in the writ petition would not survive, since after the impugned order dtd. 26/11/2020, an arbitral award has been passed in the arbitration proceedings being Arbitration Award No.11 of 2021 dtd. 3/9/2021. He has submitted that by way of the Civil Application, now the petitioner is challenging the very same award which is not permissible and the petitioner has already challenged the same in the proceedings under Sec. 34 of the Act, being Civil Misc. Application No.66 of 2022 before the District Court at Gandhinagar.