SUNIL AMBWANI,VEERENDER SINGH SIRADHANA, JJ. - (1.) WE have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(2.) AN application has been filed to vacate the interim order dated 21.08.2014, by which after issuing notices in the Special Appeal to the respondents, we had stayed the operation of the interim order passed by learned Single Judge on 15.02.2012, as well as the order dated 28.04.2014, by which the application to vacate the interim order, was dismissed. With the consent of the parties, we have finally heard the Special Appeal.
(3.) ON 21.08.2014, we passed the following order: - "Issue notice to the respondents. Steps will be taken within a week. The respondents will file reply within three weeks thereafter. List for hearing on 15.10.2014. Shri M.K. Sharma, Senior Manager, appearing for the appellant -Company, submits that the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 -Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, against the award passed by the Madhya Pradesh Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Bhopal, under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale Ancillary Undertaking Act, was not maintainable, in view of the alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the award given by the Council under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and further such appeal was not maintainable unless it was accompanied with pre -deposit of 75% of the amount, under Section 19 of the Act. It is submitted that the point in issue is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Snehadeep Structures Private Limited Vs. Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corpn. Limited, : (2010) 3 SCC 34, in which it was held that pre -deposit of 75% of the amount is a mandatory condition for preferring an appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act against the award. The applicability of Section 19 of the Interest Act was held to include reference to arbitration. In the present case, we find that instead of preferring an appeal, the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited filed a writ petition in the High Court, in which the application for vacating the interim was order dismissed. The award passed under the Act by the Facilitation Council could be challenged by the writ -petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and for which, pre -deposit of 75% of the amount under Section 19 of the Act is mandatory. Prima -facie, we find that the writ Court should not have interfered in the matter where alternative remedy of filing appeal against the award was available. The amount of interest of Rs. 76,000/ - had swelled to Rs. 1,02,93,962/ - in view of the mandatory provisions of the Act, which seeks to protect the small scale units from oppression by large industries in withholding the payments. Since the amount of interest has to be computed every month, it is obvious that it will swell to much large amount. Be that as it may, the respondents have neither set up any case of lack of jurisdiction with the Facilitation Council, nor any case of financial hardship has been set up, which may make the remedy of appeal onerous. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge was not justified in law. The interim order dated 15.02.2012 as well as order dated 28.04.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge, are thus stayed. It will be open to the respondent No. 1 to file an appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, subject to limitation and for condonation of delay, after deposit of 75% of the amount, as awarded by the Facilitation Council." It is submitted by the Counsel appearing for the respondents that the Award passed by the Madhya Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Bhopal (in short, 'the Facilitation Council') under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (in short, the Act of 2006'), is not only grossly illegal, but is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the claim of the appellant for interest on delayed payment related to the supplies made from 15.03.1999 to 20.03.1999. The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (Act No. 27 of 2006) came into force on 16.06.2006, and that any claim for delayed interest under the Act, was not maintainable for the period prior to the enforcement of the Act. It is submitted that the claim made by the appellant was also hopelessly barred by limitation. The Facilitation Council under the Act of 2006, acts as a Conciliator, and thus the limitation of three years provided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, the Act of 1996'), will be applicable to the claims made to the Facilitation Council. It is submitted that in the present case, the claim was made with regard to the delayed interest for the supplies made between 15.03.1999 to 20.03.1999, and thus the claim was stale and could not be entertained by the Facilitation Council. The Facilitation Council acted beyond its authority in awarding the claim, for an amount of Rs. 76,000/ - only, with compound interest for Rs. 1,02,93,962.;