ORDER

1. Mr. Panigrahi, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. He submits, impugned is award dated 10th December, 2019 made by Director of Industries, Odisha. This award was purportedly made under section 18 of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. He submits, there should be interference in writ jurisdiction because there are no reasons given in the award, in dealing with his client's contention that the claims are barred by limitation. He relies on judgment dated 29th June, 2021 of the Supreme Court in Silpi Industries vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation available at 2021 SCC Online SC 439 (Civil Appeal nos. 1570-1578 of 2021), paragraphs 13 and 18. Two issues were framed in the adjudication. First issue was whether provisions of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to arbitration proceedings initiated under section 18(3) of the 2006 Act. The Supreme Court in paragraph-18 declared that provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to arbitration proceedings under section 18(3) of the 2006 Act. He laid emphasis on following sentence in paragraph 18, reproduced below.

'Thus, we are of the view that no further elaboration is necessary