Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Syed Ali Murtaza, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Petitioner before this Court is a private small scale industrial unit covered under the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 2006’). Petitioner is engaged in manufacturers of engineering equipments and is stated to have entered into a contract with respondent No. 3, M/s. Jay Pee Enterprises for execution of the certain work contract.

3. There exists a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 qua nature of the work performed under the aforesaid contract. As a consequence thereto, there is a dispute with regard to payment of money in terms of the contract between the parties. Respondent No. 3, who claims itself to be an Enterprise covered by the provisions of Act, 2006, filed a claim petition before the Industries Facilitation Council, U.P. at Kanpur (for short ‘Council’), which was numbered as Claim Petition No. 9 of 2004, claiming a sum of Rs. 9,99,548/- with interest at the rate of 15%, under the provisions of Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1993’). Claim petition was contested by the petitioners and they pleaded a counter claim for sum of Rs. 61,90,000/-. Matter was heard and before orders could be passed, Act, 1993 was repealed and substituted by the provisions of Act, 2006 ( Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. Despite the enforcement of the Act, 2006, the Council constituted under Act, 1993 proceeded to make an award in the matter dated 19th June, 2007. Petitioner not being satisfied filed writ petition No. 55675 of 2007 before this Court. The writ petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 19th November, 2007 and the award made by the Council dated 19th June, 2007 was set aside with following observations :

“Counsel for the parties agree that in such a situation the award may be set aside and the matter may be directed to be heard afresh by respondent No. 2, U.P. State Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Kanpur which may consider all the objections of the petitioner including his objection regarding jurisdiction of respondent No. 2 and the counter claim filed by the petitioner. Parties would be permitted to raise all contentions and objections available to them under the law before the respondent No. 2.

In view of the aforesaid, position, this writ petition is allowed. The award dated 19.6.2007 passed by the respondent No. 2 is set aside. The respondent No. 2 shall try to decide the case expeditiously and if possible within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before it by either of the parties."

4. The matter was thereafter heard by the Council constituted under Act, 2006 and an award has been made on 4th December, 2008 in favour of respondent No. 3, where in a total sum of Rs. 16,81,860/- (principal amount Rs. 8,46,387/- plus interest Rs. 8,35,473/-) till the date of award along with future interest in accordance with the Act on the principal amount till the entire amount with interest is liquidated. A sum of Rs. 15,000/- has also been provided as the cost of the case. It is against this award that the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition may be decided finally at this stage of the proceedings without calling for any further affidavits, in view of the fact that only legal issues have been raised in the present writ petition and no factual controversy is to be examined. Accordingly with the consent of the parties the matter has been heard today by the Court.

6. The award of the C