IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdictional challenges to arbitration awards must be raised under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, and the pre-deposit requirement under Section 19 of the MSME Act is mandatory.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. K. Rajendran, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. K.Pratik Reddy appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Industries appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The petitioner approached the court seeking prayer as under:

“to issue a Writ Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction call for the records pertaining to and in connection with the Award dated 25.03.2022 in Case No. 454/IFC/Mdl-Mlg/2019 passed by Respondent-2 including the records constituting/ composition of Resp.-2 and declare Respondent-2 Council and the Award as illegal, ultra-vires being capricious, perverse, without any authority of law, in gross violation of principles of natural justice, gross abuse of power and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 19, of the Constitution of India besides being opposed to all canons of equity, justice and fair play and grant such other or further relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

3. PERUSED THE RECORD:

(A) The counter and vacate petition has been filed on behalf of the 3rd Respondent – Para Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit read as follows:

“4. The present Writ Petition is only filed to get away from the mandatory requirement of depositing 75% of the awarded amount by the Petitioner. If Section 34 was invoked, the Petitioner ought to have deposited 75% of the awarded amount which is now avoided by invoking the Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

6. The Respondent No. 3 filed an application before the Respondent No. 2 under Section 18(1) of MSME Act seeking an award against the Petitioner for payment of an amount of Rs. 44,17,200/- as the same remained unpaid under purchase order dated 07.01.2016 for supply of Lift Double Girder Box Type EOT Crane with erection and commissioning. The following dates are crucial to determine the present Writ Petition.

7. In view of the above facts it is evident that:

(a) Ample opportunity was given to the Petitioner and the award was not passed ex-parte.

(b) The Petitioner failed to appear for conciliation despite being put to the notice and therefore Respondent No. 2 was compelled to proceed with arbitration.

(c) Despite giving opportunity to file Defense Statement with documents on the date of final hearing, the Petitioner chose not to file the same.

(d) The Respondent No. 2 has recorded all contentions raised by all parties and at Para 16 has given its reasons for rejecting the contentions of the Petitioner. Specifically, it was held that:

“16....

(i) The Respondent's objections with regard to the claimant unit status under Micro / Small enterprises category, with regard to making the end user of goods supplied i.e., M/s. Jeppiaar Power Corporation Pvt. Ltd as Respondent, and with regard to LC issue and supply of goods after scheduled delivery period are not proved as he has not furnished any supportive documents and the claimant had denied and answered all the issues raised by the Respondent along with supportive documents.

(ii) The claimant submitted statement of accounts, IT returns, e-way bills, LR Copies, goods transporters consignments notes acknowledged by Respondent in support of his claim.”

(e) After giving its reasons and recording that documentary evidence and arguments are examined, the claim of Respondent No. 3 is allowed.

8. All of the above clearly demonstrate that the procedure established under the MSME Act is followed and since no documentary evidence is produced by the Petitioner, after giving reasons, the award was passed.

9. After the award, the Respondent No. 3 filed an Execution Petition before High Court Bench, Chennai vide EP No. 57 of 2023.

10. At this stage, the above Writ Petitio