Gujarat High Court
Messrs Jmc Projects (India) vs Messrs Mechtech Enginers & on 17 September, 2013
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi
Bench: Ravi R.Tripathi
MESSRS JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTDV/SMESSRS MECHTECH ENGINERS C/LPA/194/2011 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 194 of 2011 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14629 of 2010 ================================================================ MESSRS JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD & 1....Appellant(s) Versus MESSRS MECHTECH ENGINERS & 1....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR PARESH M DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 - 2 MR BS PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Date : 17/09/2013 ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI)
1. M/s.
JMC Projects (India) Ltd., along with Shri Kiran Badkatte, is before this Court being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 10.01.2011 passed by learned single Judge in SCA No.14629 of 2010, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the petition and granted time to deposit the amount as per the impugned order till 31.01.2011. Notice was discharged and interim relief was vacated.
2. It is really painful that, despite that order, the respondents are still high and dry and they are yet to see the colour of the money. Learned advocate Mr.Paresh Dave for the appellants strenuously tried to convince this Court that the learned single Judge erred in dismissing the petition and upheld the order which was challenged before the learned Judge. In this regard, the learned advocate invited the attention of the Court to paragraphs 14 and 15 of the order of learned single Judge, which read as under:
14.
Section 18 of the Act of 2006, as can be seen from the perusal of the same, provides for resolution of dispute regarding such payments by Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. The Council is authorized to conduct conciliation itself or refer the same to any center providing for alternate dispute resolution services. Council also is authorized to arbitrate and render its award. It is true, as pointed by the counsel for the petitioners, that section 19 of the Act providing for pre-deposit immediately succeeds section 18 of the Act of 2006 which principally provides for conciliation or arbitration by the Micro and Small Industries Facilitation Council or any institution or center providing alternate dispute resolution to which reference may be made by the Council. However, plain language of section 19 would not permit restriction of its applicability only in case of award envisaged under section 18 of the Act. Section 19 in clear terms provides that no application for setting aside any decree, award or other order made either by Council or by any institution or center providing alternate dispute resolution services to which reference has been made by the Council shall be entertained without deposit of 75% of the amount in terms of decree, award or order.
15. I am unable to uphold the contention of the Counsel for the petitioners that section 19 would apply only in case of award passed by the Council or any institute or center to which reference is made by the Council. If such an interpretation is accepted, the term decree in section 19 would be rendered redundant since neither the Council nor any institution or center to which reference would be made by the Council would be passing a decree. As already noted, section 18 pertains to procedure for conciliation or arbitration to be undertaken either by the Council or by any center or institution to which reference may be made by the Council.
3. On having perused the documents which are produced and on having perused the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
4. It is not in dispute that the purchase order was for Rs.1,70,77,840/-. It is also not in dispute that the learned advocate for the appellants gave the figure of the amount paid to the respondent to be Rs.18 lakhs and odd. In that view of the matter, what is paid by the appellants is roughly one month s interest on Rs.1,70,77,480/- and, therefore, we deem it proper to impose one month s interest by way of costs, which comes to Rs.17,07,748/-. The amount of costs shall be paid by the appellants to respondent No.1 within a month from the date of receipt of this order.
5. The matter has remained pending before this Court since 2010 and the LPA was filed in 2011 and we are in 2013. If interest on the amount of purchase order is taken into consideration every month, the petitioner is earning crores of rupees by way of interest alone.
( RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J.) ( MOHINDER PAL, J.) (KMGThilake) Page 4 of 4