Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. The second document dated 29.06.2015 is the Award dated 29.06.2015/18.10.2015 which holds that none has appeared for the petitioner for the conciliation proceedings and no written statement has been filed by any of the parties. Accordingly, it chooses to terminate the conciliation proceedings for claim No.1 for extra work of dragging of power transformers and keep the other two claims open for conciliation. It framed three issues. On jurisdiction, the Council holds that the Council at Kanpur has jurisdiction. On the second issue, it notes the Minutes of the meetings between the parties dated 01.05.2013 and 28.12.2013 and concludes that the petitioner does not appear to have taken steps to realise the money from NTPC and hence has violated Section 15 of the MSME Act, 2006. It also concludes that there is no dispute about the liability of the petitioner to pay the amount. It passes an award in favour of the respondent for Rs.26,29,375/- plus interest of Rs.45,81,516/- under Section 16 of the MSME Act being a total of Rs. 72,10,891/-. As noted above, the Award is dated 29.06.2015 but was signed on 18.10.2015. On 22.11.2015 another document is signed based on the some calculation made by the Additional Statistical Officer which shows that the total award amount is Rs. 72,10,891/-.

20. On 16.07.2015 the Council on a petition submitted by the respondent praying for a composite award reiterates that the Council retains its Award dated 29.06.2015. Thereafter, the matter was fixed before Council on 13.08.2015 where again similar type of proceedings were held namely on claim No.2 of the respondent, the Council terminated the Conciliation Proceedings and on the same date, without intimation or an opportunity to the petitioner stating that arbitration proceedings have commenced and that it may file its defence passed an award terming it as Award Part-II. The Council in the award after noting some of the facts terminated the conciliation proceedings with regard to the claim for payment of Rs.1,38,52,500/- of the respondent keeping the third dispute i.e. the claim of the respondent regarding payment of Rs.30 lakhs open. It framed four issues. On issue No.1 pertaining jurisdiction, the Council held that it would proceed with the matter. On issue No. 2 as to whether the petitioner is liable to make the payments, the Council again relied upon the Minutes of the meetings dated 01.05.2013 and 28.12.2013 to conclude that there is no dispute regarding the liabilities of the petitioner and the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.1,38,52,500/- plus interest. The interest was quantified at Rs.2,24,23,454/-. An award for a total Rs. 3,62,75,954/- was passed on 13.08.2015 though signed on 18.10.2015. There is another signed page dated 22.11.2015 giving calculation by the Additional Statistical Officer quantifying the award for claim No.2 at 3,62,75,954/- including interest.

Hence, the conciliator may request each party to submit brief written statement describing the general nature of the disputes and points at issues. He has to assist the parties thereafter in reaching an amicable settlement.

23. Section 76 of the Act deals with termination of the conciliation proceedings which reads as follows:-

"76. Termination of conciliation proceedings.--The conciliation proceedings shall be terminated--
(a) by the signing of the settlement agreement by the parties on the date of the agreement; or

36. The Award on the face of it is recording erroneous facts regarding the presence of the petitioner. It makes a categorical statement that despite service of notice on the petitioner inviting them for conciliation, none has appeared and no written statement has been filed. In contrast, in the record of the proceedings that has took place on 29.06.2015 which is the date on which the Award is purportedly passed though signed subsequently on 18.10.2015, the record categorically states the presence of Sh. Arun Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. It also records his submission for giving some more time to finalize the conciliation proceedings. It is also a matter of fact that on 06.06.2015 a detailed representation has been filed by the petitioner under Section 65 of the Act in response to the conciliation proceedings initiated by the Council which was on record. There is no reference to this document/reply filed by the respondent.