Heard learned advocate for the petitioner.
Learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that the provisions of Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 have not been scrupulously followed so as to afford adequate opportunity to the petitioner. He further submitted that the identical award was subject matter of challenge in Special Civil Application No. 2471 of 2011, wherein, learned Single Judge of this Court on 11.10.2011 was pleased to dismiss the matter on account of alternative remedy by way of proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in terms of Section 18. However, that order was assailed in Division Bench by preferring Letters Patent Appeal No. 1997 of 2011, wherein the Division Bench has stayed the judgment as well as impugned award.
In view of this, let there be a notice returnable on 19.03.2012.
The Court is not inclined to grant interim relief at this stage or at subsequent stage, as this court is prima-facie of the view that alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act and impugned award is required to be challenged in accordance with provisions of Section 18 of the Act and ordinarily the court would have in fact consider the dismissal of the matter on account of alternative remedy. Even the grounds which have been urged and which have of some significance, could also be urged before the competent authority while challenging the award and therefore, provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is squarely available. However, it is only on this ground that the Division Bench has stayed the award in identical matter, the court is inclined to issue notice but at the same time, the Court cannot ignore the statutory provision of preferring an appeal by depositing 75% of the amount. Upon inquiry from the learned advocate to deposit 75% of the amount, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that he has no instructions with regard to deposit of 75% of the amount. In view of this, the court is not inclined to grant the interim relief in favour of the petitioner or else it would amount to defeat indirectly the entire sense of expeditious disposal so far as contractual matters are concerned under the Act.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) pallav Top