EKTA TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Respondent preferred an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before learned Court of Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi being Miscellaneous Case No. 11 of 2014 in order to lay challenge to the Award dated 18th May, 2012. Award was received by them on 19th June, 2012. However, instead of choosing to prefer an application under Section 34 of the Act, straightway they approached the Writ Court in W.P.(C) No. 6876 of 2012. Learned Court by order dated 29th April, 2013 (Annexure-6) dismissed the writ petition. It was also noticed that petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal under the Act of 1996 and that writ petition was filed after the time limit for filing of such application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 had expired. Respondent/writ petitioner had raised a plea that the Award was rendered by Jharkhand Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council without due notice to it. On facts, however, it failed to establish that the order was passed without notice or affording opportunity of hearing to them. This was taken in appeal before learned Division Bench in L.P.A No. 200 of 2013. Appeal was disposed of with the following observations:

(3.) Section 34 application was preferred thereafter on 29th May, 2014 i.e. within 8 weeks period granted by learned Division Bench. Respondent herein also made pre-deposit as per Section 19 of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. Claimant/objector/writ petitioner herein took preliminary objection both on the grounds of limitation and on the question of pre-deposit which according to it, was not as per Section 19 of the Act of 2006. Applicant had not deposited 75% of the amount as per Award i.e. Rs. 77,89,390/-. The plea of territorial jurisdiction was also raised. By the impugned order dated 25th July, 2015, learned Court held that the instant case was maintainable and not barred by law of limitation or res judicata. It also overruled the plea raised on non-compliance of pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount.