SARAVANA SELVARATHINAM DAIRY DIVISION Vs. NIVJER INFRASTRUCTURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai Region (the Arbitral Tribunal) is the petitioner herein. An award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on 10/6/2010 under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (the MSMED Act) is assailed herein. Sec. 18(3) of the MSMED Act prescribes that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Arbitration Act) shall apply to arbitration under the MSMED Act. As regards a challenge to an award under the MSMED Act, Sec. 19(1) of the MSMED Act prohibits a court from entertaining the same unless 75% of the amount awarded is deposited in the manner directed by the court. By calculating the amount awarded, including interest, in a sum of Rs.18,86,965.00, a sum of Rs.14,59,377.00 was deposited by the petitioner to the credit of this petition in compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under the MSMED Act.

(2.) The petitioner herein issued a purchase order dtd. 19/8/2002 to the 1st respondent for supply, erection and commissioning of a refrigeration plant. Such purchase order was for a sum of Rs.40,00,000.00. According to the 1st respondent, such purchase order was subject to more than one variation. As a result, the 1st respondent herein claims that a total sum of Rs.48,52,838.00was payable for the supply effected by the 1st respondent. The admitted position is that a sum of Rs.45,50,000.00 was paid by the petitioner to the 1st respondent towards such supply. According to the 1st respondent, a sum of Rs.3,02,838.00 remained unpaid along with interest thereon. In order to recover such alleged outstanding sum, proceedings were initiated before the Arbitral Tribunal under the MSMED Act in the year 2005. Pursuant thereto, an order dtd. 6/2/2009 was passed by the 2nd respondent. The said order was assailed by the petitioner by filing O.P.No.481 of 2009. By order dtd. 4/3/2010, this Court directed the Arbitral Tribunal to rehear the matter after providing an opportunity to both parties. Thereafter, it appears that the impugned award dtd. 10/6/2010 was issued.

(3.) The petitioner states that such award was not received by him. According to the petitioner, when O.P.No.481 of 2009, which had been kept pending, was listed for hearing it was noticed that the Arbitral Tribunal had not forwarded the records to the Court in compliance with the earlier order dtd. 4/3/2010. Therefore, such records were called for and were placed before this Court on 30/1/2020. Upon perusal of the award dtd. 10/6/2010, this Court dismissed O.P.No.481 of 2009 by leaving it open to the petitioner herein to assail the award dtd. 10/6/2010. The present petition is before this Court in these facts and circumstances.