Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S R.S. Avtar Singh & Co. vs M/S Vindyachal Air Products Pvt. Ltd on 8 January, 2013
W.P.No.9174/2012 & W.P.No.9022/2012
08/01/2013
W.P.No.9174/2012
Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for Respondent
No.1.
W.P.No.9022/2012Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the respondent. As common questions are involved in both these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, documents and pleadings available in W.P.No.9174/2012 are being referred to in this order.
Petitioner herein M/s R.S. Avtar Singh & Company feels aggrieved by the order passed by the M.P. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, which has passed certain orders under statutory provisions and the rules framed thereunder. It is seen that the respondent/ Vindyachal Air Products Pvt. Ltd. filed a claim purported to be under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2006 and after hearing all concerned, the matter was decided by the council.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the council, petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act read along with Section 19 of the Act of 2006. Initially, the application for stay was filed in the said proceedings and as certain orders adverse to the petitioner herein was passed, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.1602/2009. The matter came to this Court and an order was passed by this Court in W.P.No.1602/2009 vide Annexure-P5. After considering the provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 2006, it was directed by this Court that the petitioner herein shall deposit 75% of the amount awarded inclusive of interest in accordance with the conditions stipulated under Section 19 of the Act of 2006. The amount was to be deposited within four weeks by way of Bank Draft and it was further directed that 50% of the amount, so deposited, shall be disbursed by the respondent herein and the remaining 25% of the amount shall be invested in the fix deposit to be disbursed in terms of the final decision.
Be it as it may be, the amount was deposited by the petitioner in various installments and records indicate that various amounts were deposited with the District Judge, which according to the petitioner comes to ` 21,63,558/-. After the amount was deposited, the learned District Judge heard the reference on merit, found that the council has not decided the matter properly and, therefore, remanded the matter back to the council for fresh decision in accordance with certain observations made in the order Annexure-P7 dated 30th of January, 2012. Even though, three months' time was given in the said order to the council to decide the matter and under the statute also, the council is mandated to decide the matter within 90 days, it is seen that the matter is still not decided and still pending after it's initiation in the year 2005. The grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that while quashing the original order passed by the council, the learned District Judge has not granted refund of the entire amount deposited by the petitioner and Shri Vivek Rusia submitted that once the award passed by the council is set aside and the matter is remanded back, the petitioner is entitled to refund of the entire amount which was deposited by virtue of the condition as contemplated under Section 19 of the Act of 2006.
Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondent fairly stated that the contentions advanced by the petitioner may be correct and once the award is set aside, the amount shall be refunded back to the petitioner, this Court appreciated the fairness of Shri Shashank Shekhar.
As far as the petitioner in the other writ petition i.e. W.P.No.9022/2012 is concerned, the grievance of the petitioner is that even though under the Act of 2006, reference is to be decided within a period of 19 days and the District Judge has also passed the order giving three months' time to the council to decide the matter vide order dated 30.1.2012 but the council has still not decided the matter.
Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel submits that the said contention of Shri Shashank Shekhar cannot be accepted as the matter is pending before the District Judge after the said award was passed in the year 2011 and, therefore, embargo of 90 days shall not apply. It is stated by him that the District Judge is empowered to deal with the matter.
Shri Shashank Shekhar refuted the aforesaid and pointed out that the respondent in W.P.No.9022/2012 is unnecessarily prolonging the matter.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that both the writ petitions are to be allowed. As far as W.P.No.9174/2012 is concerned, once the award passed by the council is set aside, all the amount which was deposited, as an interim measure, are to be refunded back to the petitioner and the District Judge has committed a grave error in not directing for refunding of the said amount. To that extent, the order passed by the learned District Judge is modified and it is directed that the entire amount deposited by the petitioner, while the appeal was pending before the District Judge shall be refunded back within 15 days' from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
As far as the claim made by the petitioner in W.P.No.9022/2012 is concerned, they are entitled to an early decision on their application and the law also mandates that the claim should be considered and decided within a reasonable time.
Keeping in view the aforesaid, W.P.No.9022/2012 is also allowed. It is directed that both the parties shall appear before the council along with certified copy of this order on 28th of January, 2013 and on the same being done, the council shall decide the matter after hearing all concerned within a period of 60 days, thereafter.
It is made clear that if the petitioner or any party commits unnecessary delay, the council can proceed exparte in the matter and decide the same within a period of 60 days on merits.
With the aforesaid, both the writ petitions are allowed and disposed of.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge nd