K.S.JHAVERI,J. - (1.) Since in both the appeals similar question in relation to predeposit of 75% of the award amount is involved and arise out of 2 identical writ petitions decided by one judgment by the learned Single Judge, the same are heard together and are being decided by this common order.
(2.) By way of these two appeals, appellant seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11th September, 2017 whereby the two writ petitions filed by the appellant have been dismissed as per the view taken by the learned Single Judge in SB writ petition No. 14207/2017. By the order dated 11th September, 2017 passed in the writ petition the learned Single Judge has taken the following view:- "The objection of Mr. Agarwal with regard to misjoinder of causes of action in this petition is valid. A challenge to an order dismissing the objections filed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 to an award cannot lie along with an order passed on an application for execution of the said award. The proceedings though related are different and fall in distinct jurisdictions. Further a challenge to an order dismissing objections under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 is appealable under Section 37 thereof. That challenge in this petition thereto has to be dismissed on ground of availability of alternative remedy. Even otherwise on merits, the petitioner-Board has no case. Section 19 of the Act of 2006 is peremptory in nature and provides that no application for setting aside any decree, award or other order made either by the council itself or by any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services to which a reference is made by the Council, shall be entertained by any court unless the appellant (not being a supplier) has deposited with it 75% of the award amount in terms of the decree, award or, as the case may be, in the manner directed by such court. The Apex Court in the case of Snehadeep Structures Private Limited v. Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited (supra) has albeit addressing the question of pre-deposit under Section 7 of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (hereafter 'Act of 1993') while considering a challenge to an award under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 and deciding the issue of predeposit in favour of the awardee, noticed the Act of 2006 and with reference to the more explicit languaged Section 19 thereof held that the question of pre-deposit for consideration of objection under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was a non sequitur. The predeposit had to be made (see para 58) . I am of the considered view that on its plain language Section 19 of the Act of 2006 would definitely apply to proceedings taken by way of the objections under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 against the statutory award passed by the Council under Section 18(3) of the Act of 2006. Objections to 3 the award under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 would be available only on redeposit of 75% of the award amount as required by Section 19 of the Act of 2006. This conclusion is buttressed by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Snehadeep Structures Private Limited v. Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited (supra). Admittedly the Board did deposit the 75% of the award amount with the Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan before whom it had laid a challenge by way of objections to the award dated 30.1.2013 passed by the Council. The impugned order dated 18.7.2016 passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan cannot thus be faulted. In this view of the matter, other challenges in the petition also fall".
(3.) Thus the learned Single Judge has taken the view that provisions of Sections 19 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are applicable to the proceedings taken by way of the objection.;