SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(All) 342

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra, JJ.
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
M/S. P.M. Electronics Ltd. - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. - 1519 of 2017
Decided On : 26-02-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vivek Ratan Agrawal, Anil Kumar Srivastava, Baleshwar Chaturvedi
For the Respondent: Alok Kumar Yadav

Point of Law
By virtue of Section 32 of Act, 2006, claim of claimant-opposite party shall be deemed to have been filed under Act, 1993 and therefore, same cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation.

Headnote:

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 37 – Award – Challenged – First Appeal filed by Respondent-Appellant challenging judgment and order passed by District Judge under Section 34 of Act, 1996, whereby Court below has set aside award delivered by U.P. State Micro and Small Industrial Facilitation Council Kanpur and remanded the matter before aforesaid Council Kanpur for decision a fresh on merits after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the parties – Held, it is not mandatory for an Industrial undertaking to file its Industrial Entrepreneur's Memorandum. Since this was the only ground relied upon by Uttar Pradesh State Micro and Small Industrial Facilitation Council, Kanpur, the finding so recorded by Council was rightly set aside by Court below. In the absence of any such materials to establish that filing of Industrial Entrepreneur's Memorandum is mandatory, order upheld – Court while deciding objections under section 34 of Act, 1996, cannot substitute the award by its own judgment – Appeal dismissed (Paras 84 and 85).

Facts of the Case

Claimant-Opposite Party M/S P. M. Electronics Ltd. is a Company - Appellant awarded various purchase orders to Claimant-Opposite Party during the period 1991 to 2000. Things were going on smoothly and bills of Claimant-Opposite Party were being paid regularly. However, in the year 1997, it appears that there was some delay in payment of principal amount - Claimant-Opposite Party filed CMWP No. 7916 of 1997 before Punjab and Haryana High Court claiming payment of interest on principal amount for the period of delayed payment.

Finding of the Court

It is not mandatory for an Industrial undertaking to file its Industrial Entrepreneur's Memorandum. Since this was the only ground relied upon by Uttar Pradesh State Micro and Small Industrial Facilitation Council, Kanpur, the finding so recorded by Council was rightly set aside by Court below. In the absence of any such materials to establish that filing of Industrial Entrepreneur's Memorandum is mandatory, order upheld – Court while deciding.

Result: Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT :

Rajeev Misra, J.

1. This First Appeal From Order under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1996) has been filed by Respondent-Appellant challenging judgment and order dated 08.09.2015 passed by District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No. 100/74 of 2010 (M/s P.M. Electronics Limited Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (UHBVNL) under Section 34 of Act, 1996, whereby Court below has set aside award dated 22.02.2010 delivered by U.P. State Micro and Small Industrial Facilitation Council Kanpur and remanded the matter before aforesaid Council Kanpur for decision a fresh on merits after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the parties.

2. We have heard Mr. H. N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Srivastava, Advocate along with Mr. M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Baleshwar Chaturvedi. Learned counsel for Respondent-Appellant and Mr. Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel representing Claimant-Opposite Party.

3. Respondent-appellant Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as UHBVNL) is a Government of Haryana undertaking having its registered office at Shakti Bhavan Sector-6 Panchkula, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellant'). Appellant is engaged in distribution of electricity.

4. Claimant-Opposite Party M/S P. M. Electronics Ltd. is a Company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Claimant-Opposite Party). Claimant-Opposite Party is engaged in manufacturing and marketing of power and distribution transformers of various KVA ratings.

5. Appellant awarded various purchase orders to Claimant-Opposite Party during the period 1991 to 2000. Things were going on smoothly and bills of Claimant-Opposite Party were being paid regularly. However, in the year 1997, it appears that there was some delay in payment of principal amount. Accordingly, Claimant-Opposite Party filed CMWP No. 7916 of 1997 before Punjab and Haryana High Court claiming payment of interest on principal amount for the period of delayed payment. During pendency of above mentioned writ petition, Claimant-Opposite Party filed a Civil Misc. Application in the aforesaid writ petition praying therein that directions be issued to Government of Haryana to establish Industrial Facilitation Council (hereinafter referred to as 'IFC') as contemplated under Sections 7A and 7B of Interest on Delayed Payment to Small Scale Ancillary Industrial Undertaking Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1993) within a period of three months.

6. It transpires from record that by and large contract awarded to Claimant-Opposite Party was performed smoothly by him. However, in the year 2000, Claimant-Opposite Party is alleged to have failed in completing purchase orders resulting in immense loss to UHBVNL. Consequently, in view of above and in accordance with conditions of contract, UHBVNL encashed bank guarantee submitted by Claimant- Opposite Party.

7. It is further gathered from record that Claimant-Opposite Party filed an Original Suit in Civil Court at Panchkula, Haryana, but neither plaint of aforesaid suit nor any other document has been brought on record to show the relief claimed in aforesaid suit or what has ultimately happened in that suit.

8. Subsequently, Chief Engineer UHBVNL, Panchkula Haryana passed an order dated 3.10.2006, blacklisting Claimant-Opposite party, but there is nothing on record to show that aforesaid order dated 3.10.2006 was challenged by Claimant-Opposite party.

9. Punjab and Haryana High Court did not examine the merits of claim raised by petitioner i.e. Claimant-Opposite Party herein in CMWP No. 7916 of 1997 but disposed of the said writ petition finally vide order dated 13.02.2002.

10. Perusal of order dated 13.02.2002 goes to show that aforesaid writ petition was disposed of finally on

                              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                              1
                              2
                              3
                              4
                              5
                              6
                              7
                              8
                              9
                              10
                              11
                              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                              supreme today icon
                              logo-black

                              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                              Please visit our Training & Support
                              Center or Contact Us for assistance

                              qr

                              Scan Me!

                              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                              whatsapp-icon Back to top