The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 to arbitration proceedings initiated under section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.

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 on this issue and we hold that the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 will apply to the arbitrations covered by Section 18(3) of the 2006 Act.'

2. Mr. Mishra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of opposite party and submits, the writ petition is not maintainable. He relies on the following.

(i) Order dated 2nd November, 2020 in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) no.11883 of 2020. Text of the order is reproduced below.

'Having heard Shri Kalra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, for some time, we may only reiterate what we have stated in Deep Industries Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and Another (2019) SCC Online SC 1602 and several other cases that we have frowned upon persons knocking at the doors of the Writ Court in arbitration matters. This is one more such case. As a result, we dismiss the matter with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks.'

(ii) Order dated 10th December, 2021 made by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. no.836 of 2021 (M/s. Anupam Industries Ltd. v. State of Orissa and others). The entire order is reproduced below.

'1. Mr. S.C. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Appellant urges that since in the present case there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice, the learned Single Judge ought not to have relegated the Petitioner to the appellate remedy provided under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act). He refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1.

2. Having considered the submissions of Mr. Tripathy, the Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the learned Single Judge in observing that all the grounds urged in the writ petition would be urged before the Appellate Authority, under the MSME Act, in accordance with law.

3. Accordingly, the Court is not persuaded to interfere with the writ appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

(iii) Order dated 20th December, 2021 made by this Bench in W.P.(C) no.28464 of 2020 (Rolta India Ltd. v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and another). He relies particularly on paragraphs 4 and 5, reproduced below

"4. He also submits, order dated 10th December, 2021 made by the 1 st Division Bench of this Court in dismissing appeal against order dated 22nd September, 2021 made by coordinate Bench in Anupam Industries Ltd. (supra) cannot bind this Bench, in the circumstances of law declared by the Supreme Court.

5. Committee of Court demands that view taken by order dated 22nd September, 2021 in Anupam Industries Ltd. (supra) by coordinate Bench, confirmed in appeal by order dated 10th December, 2021, be followed. As such, there is no room for interference. "

3