JUDGMENT :

With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.

2. The instant intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred against order/judgment dated 22.01.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 1558 of 2016 whereby and whereunder writ petition was dismissed refusing to interfere with order dated 22.01.2011 passed by the Jharkhand Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Council (hereinafter referred to as ‘Council’), by which writ petitioner was directed to pay the principal outstanding amount of Rs. 35,100/- which remained outstanding on 22.07.2005 along with interest on delayed payment of settled dues of 5,76,610/- as on 15.11.1996 to 01.10.2006 and thereafter further interest at the rate of three times of the Bank in terms of Section 16 of the MSMED Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 2006’); and order dated 08.12.2015 passed by the learned Sub- Judge-I, Ranchi in Arbitration Misc. Case No. 30 of 2011 by which challenge to the award was responded by an observation to fulfill the condition pre-requisites entitled under the MSMED Act, which makes the total claim amounting to Rs. 35,100 + 54,42,162 = Rs. 54,77,162 as also order dated 08.12.2015 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 41,07,872/- for maintaining his quest for setting aside order passed by the MSMED Council.

3. The brief facts of the case, which are required to be enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis, are as under:

The writ petitioner-HEC issued work order No. ACD/HMB/95/96/2925/T/3197/0 dated 06.03.1995 to respondent no. 2 for supply of rack and pinion gates worth Rs. 57.48 lakhs. The respondent no. 2 claimed various bills on writ petitioner-HEC amounting to Rs. 19.53 lakhs however at later stage, respondent no. 2 mutually agreed to settled for Rs. 5,76,610/- as full and final settlement. It is stated that after which the matter would have been settled and the agreement also entailed a condition that respondent no. 2 would furnish an undertaking but respondent no. 2 refrained themselves from furnishing the said undertaking as mentioned in the agreement and filed a Company Petition being Company Petition No. 08 of 1997 which was dismissed vide order dated 08.02.2000. The respondent no. 2 again approached the appropriate authority for realization of the then agreed amount of Rs. 5,76,610/- showing willingness to furnish an undertaking and vide letter dated 30.04.2005 agreed with the terms and conditions of the petitioner as also to the deduction of Rs. 4,50,000/- as well as Rs. 35,100/- from their bills for expenditure incurred for the parallel action in HMBP and cost incurred for making locking arrangement of rack and pinion gates respectively. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner paid Rs. 3 lakhs on 06.06.2005 and Rs. 2,41,510/- on 22.07.2005 to respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 12.05.2005.

It has further been stated that respondent no. 2 after receiving payment from the petitioner without any objection moved the Council under Section 18 of the Act, 2006 for realization of Rs. 35,100/-. The Council took cognizance of the issue and passed an order/award dated 22.01.2011 in Case No. JHSEFC 29/2009 by which the writ petitioner was directed to pay principal outstanding of Rs. 35,100/- which remained outstanding on 22.07.2005 along with interest on delayed payment of settled dues of Rs. 5,76,610/- as on 15.11.1996 at the rate of 1.5 times of SBI Prime Lending Rate from 15.11.1996 to 01.10.2006 and thereafter further interest at the rate of three times of the Bank Rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India in terms of Section 16 of the Act, 2006.

The petitioner challenged the award dated 22.01.2011 before learned Court below, Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi in Arbitration Misc. Case No. 30 of 2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 08.12.2015 holding that the petitioner has to deposit 75% of the p