Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M/S Hindustan Zinc Limited vs M/S Shree R.N Metals India Pvt Limited on 6 December, 2018
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Alok Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25792/2018
With
D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.21566/2018
M/s Hindustan Zinc Limited, Yashad Bhawan, Swaroop Sagar,
Udaipur-313001 Through Authorized Signatory Vineet Bose.
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s Shree R.N Metals India Pvt. Limited, G-1, 2 And 22,
Shubham Apartments, Plot No. 2 Near Ganpati Towers, Central
Spine, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur-302023
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Prateek Mathur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Order 06/12/2018 This writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 08.10.2018 by which the preliminary objection raised by the respondent about the maintainability of the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to the award of the Rajasthan Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Jaipur, has been upheld requiring the petitioner to deposit 75% of the awarded amount as per Section 19 of the Rajasthan Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short, 'the Act of 2006').
Even though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the award referred to in Section 19 of the Act of 2006 would only denote the principal amount of (2 of 2) [CW-25792/2018] Rs.15,17,387/- and would not include the compound interest of Rs.26,13,889/- and therefore the petitioner should have been required to deposit only deposited 75% of the principal amount excluding the amount of interest.
Apart from the fact that we do not find any extraordinary reason to entertain the writ petition in the light of the view taken by this court in its judgment in Shri Balaji Industrial Products Limited Vs. AIA Engineering Limited and Others - 2018 (2) WLC (Raj.) 211, on merits also we do not see any reason to differ with the view taken by the Commercial Court following many precedents, especially when it has by requiring the petitioner to deposit 75% of the awarded sum, directed its disbursement to respondents only on furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the court either by bank guarantee or FDR.
While therefore not interfering with the impugned order, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with direction to the Commercial Court No.1, Jaipur to decide the objection of the petitioner within three months from the date of deposition of the entire amount required by the impugned order subject to production of the copy of this order before it.
With that direction, the writ petition is disposed of. This also disposes of the stay application.
(ALOK SHARMA),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J
//Jaiman//3
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)