JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Arbitration Original Petition filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, to set aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent herein, in MSEFC/CR/03/2005, dated 10.06.2010.)

1. The respondent before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai Region (the Arbitral Tribunal) is the petitioner herein. An award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on 10.06.2010 under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (the MSMED Act) is assailed herein. Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act prescribes that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Arbitration Act) shall apply to arbitration under the MSMED Act. As regards a challenge to an award under the MSMED Act, Section 19(1) of the MSMED Act prohibits a court from entertaining the same unless 75% of the amount awarded is deposited in the manner directed by the court. By calculating the amount awarded, including interest, in a sum of Rs.18,86,965/-, a sum of Rs 14,59,377/- was deposited by the petitioner to the credit of this petition in compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under the MSMED Act.

2. The petitioner herein issued a purchase order dated 19.08.2002 to the 1st respondent for supply, erection and commissioning of a refrigeration plant. Such purchase order was for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-. According to the 1st respondent, such purchase order was subject to more than one variation. As a result, the 1st respondent herein claims that a total sum of Rs.48,52,838/-was payable for the supply effected by the 1st respondent. The admitted position is that a sum of Rs.45,50,000/- was paid by the petitioner to the 1st respondent towards such supply. According to the 1st respondent, a sum of Rs.3,02,838 remained unpaid along with interest thereon. In order to recover such alleged outstanding sum, proceedings were initiated before the Arbitral Tribunal under the MSMED Act in the year 2005. Pursuant thereto, an order dated 06.02.2009 was passed by the 2nd respondent. The said order was assailed by the petitioner by filing O.P.No.481 of 2009. By order dated 04.03.2010, this Court directed the Arbitral Tribunal to rehear the matter after providing an opportunity to both parties. Thereafter, it appears that the impugned award dated 10.06.2010 was issued.

3. The petitioner states that such award was not received by him. According to the petitioner, when O.P.No.481 of 2009, which had been kept pending, was listed for hearing it was noticed that the Arbitral Tribunal had not forwarded the records to the Court in compliance with the earlier order dated 04.03.2010. Therefore, such records were called for and were placed before this Court on 30.1.2020. Upon perusal of the award dated 10.06.2010, this Court dismissed O.P.No.481 of 2009 by leaving it open to the petitioner herein to assail the award dated 10.06.2010. The present petition is before this Court in these facts and circumstances.

4. Mr. G.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailed the award primarily on the ground that the purchase order was for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-, whereas the Arbitral Tribunal committed the patent illegality of concluding that the petitioner was liable to pay a sum of Rs.48,52,838. According to the petitioner, excess payment of about Rs.5,50,000/- was made in view of the collusion between one Mr.Krishna Bisani and the 1st respondent. As regards the variation orders, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the variation orders were not brought to the notice of the petitioner. The reply filed before the Arbitral Tribunal and, in particular, paragraph 3 thereof is relied upon in support of this contention. By adverting to the impugned award, the petitioner contends that the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.48,52,838/- is not based on evidence. Indeed, the petitioner contends that the impugned award does not qualify as a reasoned award in as much as it does not indicate the basis on