Point of Law : Court are of the unhesitant view that learned Single Judge fell in error in not only entertaining the writ petition but also in allowing the same by setting aside the award dated 28.10.2021 passed by the Facilitation Council.

JUDGMENT :

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Heard Mr. Suresh Dhole, learned counsel representing Mr. Gollakota Satya Jagannath, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3.

2. This intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.No.16918 of 2022 filed by respondents No.2 and 3 as the writ petitioners.

3. It may be mentioned that respondents No.2 and 3 had filed the related writ petition assailing the legality and validity of the award dated 28.10.2021 passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (briefly, “the Facilitation Council” hereinafter). By the judgment and order dated 14.09.2022, learned Single Judge set aside the award dated 28.10.2021 by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Appellant before us is M/s. S.R. Technologies (Unit-II) (referred to hereinafter as, “claimant”, “supplier” or “appellant” as the case may be). Claimant is a small scale industrial unit bearing registration certificate dated 19.01.2007 issued by the District Industries Centre, Ranga Reddy, under the small manufacturing enterprises category. Claimant made a reference on 28.10.2015 under Section 18(1) of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (briefly, “the MSME Act” hereinafter) to the Facilitation Council for acting as Conciliator and Arbitrator in respect of the amount claimed against M/s. India Glycols Limited (respondent No.2 herein). The amounts claimed by the claimant against respondent No.2 were as follows: Principal: Rs. 40,29,862.00 and Interest: Rs. 80,89,605.00 (as on the date of filing the reference). The reference was registered and admitted by the Facilitation Council on 28.10.2015.

4.1. According to the claimant, respondent No.2 had raised purchase order dated 17.03.2008 for supply of HVAC, doors, windows, false ceiling etc., including installation and commissioning at M/s. IGL site for their NHPS Dehradun Project for an amount of Rs.2,01,00,000.00 plus excise duty etc., with the terms and conditions of payment as under:

a) 20% advance against acceptance of purchase order;

b) 10% against submission of drawings;

c) 50% payment as per the break up approved by M/s.IGL and on submission of dispatch documents on prorate basis;

d) 10% payment will be released after mechanical completion at site to be certified by M/s.IGL representative;

e) 10% payment shall be paid on submission of performance bank guarantee of equivalent amount as per IGL format valid for a period of 24 months from the date of successful commissioning;

4.2. According to the claimant, respondent No.2 had released 20% of the order value as advance on 08.05.2008 and further 10% of the order value as advance against submission of drawings on 31.05.2008. Thereafter, claimant started supply of goods from 04.06.2008 onwards and deputed erection team to the site. It submitted bill for supply/services on 21.03.2009. Respondent No.2 released 50% of the bills and retained balance amount. Claimant and respondent No.2 continued mechanical erection and submitted inspection report on 24.03.2009 whereafter claimant requested respondent No.2 to release 10% of the order value but the same was not responded to by respondent No.2 though respondent No.2 did not deny the fact that it owed 20% of the amount to the claimant. According to the claimant, it had deputed personnel for carrying out the necessary modifications as requested by respondent No.2 from time to time besides recording minutes of the meetings held on 14/15th October, 2009, 20th May, 2011 and 20th April, 2013, duly signed by both the parties.

4.3. Despite request by the claimant for release of the balance 20% of the purchase order amount, respondent No.2 had maintained silence without any payment. A series of correspondences were exchanged between the parties. Ultimately, claimant issued a legal not