Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (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: "1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant (original petitioner) against the judgment and order delivered by the learned single Judge on 29.04.2013 passed in W.P.( C) No. 6876 of 2012. 2. The present appellant (original petitioner) had preferred W.P(C) No. 6876 of 2012, against an award passed by the Jharkhand Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council order dated 19.06.2012 (Annexure-5 to this memo of Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in pursuance to Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2006 for the sake of brevity) was passed by the Council. Initially, for conciliation proceeding, the reference was made thereafter, an award has been given by the Council as an arbitrator. This is an ex-parte award and there are several violations of the provisions of the Act, 2006, as well as of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1996 for the sake of brevity). 4. Nonetheless, counsel for the appellants fairly submitted that the appellants are having efficacious remedy to challenge the said award under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 to be read with Section 19 of the Act, 2006. Application shall be preferred for setting aside an arbitral award before the learned trial court within a period of 8 weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Let suitable direction be given to the learned trial court/competent court to dispose of the said application, within stipulated time, in accordance with law. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who have no objection if this application is rendering before the learned trial court to prefer an application for setting aside the arbitral award, which is given by the Jharkhand Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, order dated 19.06.2012 but, it is submitted that as per Section 19 of the Act, 2006, the applicants shall have to deposit 75% of the amount in terms of the decree or award. 6. Having heard both the counsels and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the present respondents had supplied the goods thereafter, bills were raised, thus, bills remained unpaid and the claim was lodged by the respondents for the payment of the money, and still it is unpaid, and therefore, it appears that reference was made to Jharkhand Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council on 20.05.2011 for realization of Rs. 39,34,112/- and thereafter the Council has passed an award on 19.06.2012. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there was contract to supply 304 Uninterrupted Power Supply (U.P.S), out of which 282 U.P.S were installed, for which amount has already been paid and only for 22 U.P.S dispute is going on. 7. The appellants now want to challenge this award before the learned trial court by way of an application for setting aside the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 to be read with Section 19 of the Act, 2006. If such applications preferred by the appellants before the competent trial court within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the said competent trial court shall decide the application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 to be read with Section 19 of the Act, 2006 and if any application is preferred under Section 9 of the Act, 1996, the same will be decided as early as possible, preferably within 12 weeks thereafter in accordance with law and at least adequate opportunity of hearing be given to the respondents. 8. This Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of in view of the aforesaid efficacious remedy to be availed by the respondents."
(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.;