ORDER :

M. Sundar, J.

1. Captioned 'Original Petition' (hereinafter 'OP' for the sake of brevity) is an application under section 34 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996)', which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'A and C Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity.

2. In captioned OP, an 'arbitral award dated 11.07.2018 bearing reference MSEFC/CR/78/2017' (hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of convenience and clarity) made by 'Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council' (hereinafter 'said Council' for the sake of brevity and convenience) has been assailed.

3. In the physical hearing today, Mr. S. Ramesh, learned counsel on record for the sole petitioner is before this Court, but there is no representation for the two respondents though this Court is informed that they have been duly served and their names together with full/complete addresses as in short and long cause titles as in the captioned OP have been shown in the cause list. To be noted, this court issued notice in the captioned OP vide proceedings dated 02.06.2020 and this Court is informed that notices have been duly served, but respondents have not chosen to respond and/or enter appearance through counsel, though this matter was listed as many as seven times thereafter, i.e., on 20.07.2020, 22.07.2020, 29.07.2020, 05.08.2020, 16.09.2020, 30.09.2020 and 06.10.2020. To be noted, this is the 8th consecutive hearing/listing, in which respondents have not chosen to come before this Court. It is also to be noted that out of these eight hearings/listings (including this physical hearing today), six hearings/listings were virtual hearings which were duly notified in the cause list and 2 hearings are physical hearings which have also been duly notified in the cause list. Therefore, this court proceeds to hear the captioned OP on merits on the basis of available records and by hearing learned counsel for petitioner. To be noted, from the earlier proceedings it is seen that on 02.06.2020, notice has been issued, private notice has also been permitted and Registry has been directed to requisition arbitral records from second respondent.

4. In this regard, this court has reminded itself that sub section (6) of section 34 of A and C Act prescribes one year time line for disposal of applications under section 34 of A and C Act. This one year time line has been emphasised by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti case being State of Bihar Vs. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti reported in (2018) 9 SCC 472. This Court reminded itself that Boomi Vikas Bank Samiti case of Hon'ble Supreme Court is an authority for the broad proposition that pre-application notice under subsection (5) of Section 34 is only directory and not mandatory, but the observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court therein in paragraph 26 is of significance and the same reads as follows:

'26. We are of the opinion that the view propounded by the High Courts of Bombay and Calcutta represents the correct state of the law. However, we may add that it shall be the endeavour of every court in which a Section 34 application is filed, to stick to the time-limit of one year from the date of service of notice to the opposite party by the applicant, or by the Court, as the case may be. In case the Court issues notice after the period mentioned in Section 34(3) has elapsed, every court shall endeavour to dispose of the Section 34 application within a period of one year from the date of filing of the said application, similar to what has been provided in Section 14 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015. ........ '

(Underlining and double underlining made by this Court to supply emphasis and highlight)

5. This Court has also reminded itself that the sublime philosophy and salutary principle underlying A and C includes finality of arbitral awards ingrained in Section 35, minimum judicial intervention ingrained in se