##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL NO.1490 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

THE COMMISSIONER BHOOMI MONITORING CELL, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, SSLR BUILDING, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.R. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA)

AND:

1. THE KARNATAKA MICRO AND SMALL Digitally signed ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL by C K LATHA KHANIJA BHAVAN, Location: High RACE COURSE ROAD, Court of Karnataka NO.49, 2ND FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. M/S CONNOINSEUR ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., NO.12, 13TH MAIN, 12TH CROSS, HAL 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 008. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. DINESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

R1 SERVED)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.06.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.36552/2017 AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 25.06.2024 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 36552/2017 [GM-RES] captioned 'The Commissioner vs The Karnataka Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Another'.

2. The petitioner (Government of Karnataka) had filed the said petition impugning an award dated 08.01.2017 passed by the Karnataka Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council [Facilitation Council] under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 [the MSMED Act] directing the appellant to pay the outstanding dues of `29,32,813. The said award was rendered in the context of disputes that had arisen between the appellant and respondent No.2 (the supplier) in the following context.

3. On 25.08.2011, the appellant had issued a notification inviting tenders for supply of handheld devices for its Bhoomi Project. The supplier had participated in the bidding process and was declared the successful bidder. Accordingly, on 09.01.2012, the appellant issued a work order to respondent No.2 for supply of universal handheld devices.

4. The supplier supplied 100 devices and raised an invoice dated 22.03.2012 aggregating ` 46,90,900. Thereafter, respondent No.2 delivered the second tranche of the devices and raised the invoices for the same. The appellant states that concerns regarding the working of the devices were raised by a letter dated

03.09.2012.

5. On 01.03.2013, the Government of Karnataka approved payment of ` 17,58,087, which was credited to respondent No. 2's account. However, the balance payment was not made. In this context, respondent No. 2 approached the Facilitation Council for recovery of a sum of ` 29,32,813. The said proceedings culminated in an award dated 08.01.2017 under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, whereby the appellant was directed to pay an amount of `29,32,813 along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a.

6. The appellant did not avail of its remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act] within the stipulated period. After the time for filing an application under Section 34 of the A&C Act had expired, the appellant filed a Writ Petition on 11.08.2017 in this Court.

7. It is material to note that the appellant's challenge to the award in the writ petition was on the merits and not on any ground of jurisdiction. A plain reading of the writ petition also indicates that there were no reasons set out by the appellant for not availing the remedy under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The appellant merely stated that the appellant had no o