An order passed by an authority without giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the affected parties is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

A.V.SESHA SAI, J. - In this Writ Petition, petitioners herein are challenging the order dtd. 11/7/2018, passed by the Haryana Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chandigarh, represented by its Member Secretary, 1st respondent herein in Case No.7.

2. Briefly, stated the case of the petitioners in the present Writ Petition is as follows:

"2.1 During the year 1998, M/s.Equipment Conductors and Cables Limited, New Delhi-2nd respondent herein, supplied electric conductors to the predecessor of the petitioners herein. Predecessor of the petitioners and the petitioners herein paid the entire amounts to the 2nd respondent as per the invoices, however with some delay and the 2nd respondent received the said amounts without any protest.

2.2 The 2nd respondent herein initiated the Arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by filing the Claim Petition vide Case No.07 before the 1st respondent-Council, under the provisions of the "Interest on Delayed Payments Act, 1993, claiming interest on delayed payments for 45 claims".

2.3 Petitioner No.1 herein, after receipt of notices in the said Claim Petition Case No.07, filed a counter and also an additional defence statement and contested the matter. Respondent No.1-Council, partly allowed the said Claim Petition, vide Award No.HMSEFC/2010/08, dtd. 21/6/2010, and claims 26-45 were allowed and claims 1-25 were disallowed, on the ground that they were hopelessly barred by limitation.

2.4 Towards claims 26-45, the 1st respondentCouncil granted a sum of Rs.22, 42, 619.00 and as against the said Award dtd. 21/6/2010, petitioner No.1 herein filed Arbitration Original Petition No.523 of 2010, before the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, r/w Sec. 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006.

2.5 As per Sec. 19 of the Act, petitioner No.1 herein deposited 75% of the awarded amount. Against the aforesaid Award dtd. 21/6/2010, to the extent the same went against the 2nd respondent, 2nd respondent herein filed A.C.No.399 of 2010 before the Court of the District Judge, Chandigarh. Subsequently, Arbitration O.P.No.523 of 2010 was transferred from the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, along with 75% deposit to the Court of the District Judge, Chandigarh, and was renumbered as Arbitration Case No.580 of 2010. 2nd respondent herein had withdrawn the said deposited 75%.

2.6 Vide order dtd. 28/8/2014, the Chief Judge, Chandigarh, dismissed Arbitration Case No.580 of 2010, filed by petitioner No.1 herein.

2.7 Vide order dtd. 28/8/2014, the Chief Judge, Chandigarh, allowed Arbitration Case No.399 of 2010 and remanded the matter to respondent No.1-Council, for fresh decision on claims 1-25.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dtd. 28/8/2014, in Arbitration Cases 580 of 2010 and 399 of 2010, petitioner No.1 herein filed Appeals vide FAO No.34 of 2015 and 68 of 2015 respectively, before the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana. The Punjab and Haryana High Court passed a common order, dtd. 29/1/2016, in the said two Appeals and other two Appeals and set aside the orders impugned therein and remanded the matters. The operative portion of the said order reads of follows:

"Accordingly the order passed by the objecting court remanding the matter back is hereby set aside. As regards the objections filed by the appellant against the award aforementioned. It would be apt to refer Sec. 19 of the Act statutorily provides deposit of 75% of the amount. Sec. 19 of the Act reads thus:

"Application for setting aside decree, award or order:-No application for setting aside any decree, award or other order made either by the council itself or by any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services to which a reference is made by the Council, shall be entertained by any Court unless the appellant (not being a supplier) has depos