S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

1. By this appeal, the appellant - original respondent in the Arbitration Petition (L) No. 2464 of 2015, has challenged the order of the learned single Judge dated 15th November, 2016, allowing the Arbitration Petition filed by the respondents.

2. Admit.

3. Respondents waive service.

4. Since it is conceded that the volumes together with the paper-book filed by the appellant contain the entire record before the learned single Judge and material documents before the Arbitral Tribunal, filing of paper-book is dispensed with.

5. By consent of both sides, the appeal is heard and finally disposed of by this judgment.

6. Before proceeding further, we shall refer to the parties by their nomenclature before the learned single Judge.

7. The appellant filed Original Application/Reference Petition No. 1 of 2005 before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Mumbai, claiming the relief under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006 (for short "Act 25 of 2006/MSMED Act"). It is a successor legislation to The Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Undertaking Act, 1993 (for short Act 32 of 1993).

8. In this Original Application, it is stated by the appellant-applicant that it is a partnership firm. It is a small scale industrial unit named as M/s. Deltron Electricals, having its factory at an Industrial Estate at Vasai, District Thane. It is stated that this small scale industrial unit manufactures transformers and other electrical equipments along with undertaking the repair works of electrical equipments required by different State Electricity Boards. In terms of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and clause (1) of section 3, a certificate of registration as a small scale industry/SSI registration was filed along with this Original Application. The applicant stated that it has been set up with the noble intention of generating employment in the field of electrical engineering. The respondent before us is the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (for short "MSEDCL"). Its predecessor in title was the Maharashtra State Electricity Board constituted as per the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.

9. It is then claimed that the MSEDCL required transformers and various electrical equipments for its use. It entered into valid agreement to purchase these goods from the appellant-applicant and it executed an agreement after following due process of law. There are clearly defined terms and conditions in the agreement. The MSEDCL had the responsibility to pay the amount of the material supplied immediately within thirty days to the appellant, but not later than sixty days as per the provisions of the terms and conditions.

10. It is stated that the appellant is extended protection as per sections 4 and 5 of the Act 32 of 1993. Therefore, the buyer, namely, MSEDCL is liable to pay interest from the due date on which the amount of bill became payable till the date of payment to the appellant. This provision is inserted in an Act meant to protect and encourage small scale industrial units. They have to be protected against undue losses and which may occur due to delayed payment of the bills by the buyer units.

11. After setting out the details of the supplies and how the interest claim against various orders arises as on 31st March, 2005, the application proceeds to state that the appellant made sincere efforts to complete the work in time and submitted the bills. It was stated in the application that there was no complaint about the quality and quantity of the goods. Therefore, the bills should have been cleared in time. Since the payment was delayed, the interest became payable in terms of a Circular No. 2464 dated 1st July, 2004, as also the Act 32 of 1993. Thus, there is acceptance of the obligation to pay interest on delayed payment to small scale industrial units. The application proceeds in paragraph 4 to set out the total amount of inte