CAV ORDER

1) The petitioner has preferred the instant petition seeking review/recall of the order dated

12.06.2023 passed in WPC No. 1481 of 2023, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on two grounds:- (i) it is hit by constructive res judicata, and (ii) there is an alternative remedy.

2) Facts of the case as stated in the Writ Petitions are as under:-

A. On 23.05.2012, the petitioner along with its other consortium members, entered into an agreement with National Mineral Development Corporation Limited (for short, ‘NMDC’) for the works of supply of Fabricated Building Steel Structures including Sheeting & Glazing and Receipt, Unloading, Storage and Transportation from Stores to Erection Site, Erection including Supervision etc. relating to Steel Melting Shop (Package No-06) for 3.0 MTPA NMDC integrated steel plant at Nagarnar, Chhattisgarh, for a value of approx. Rs.643.77 Crores.

B. Pursuant to the above-stated agreement, on 29.12.2012 the petitioner placed a letter of award of contract (for short, ‘LAC’) to the M/s Core Fab/respondent No.2, for supply of fabrication and transportation of 2500 MT quantity of E- 250 and E-350 grade building steel structure for Steel Melting Shop (Package No.06) for 3.0 MTPA NMDC, Integrated steel plant at Nagarnar, Chhattisgarh for a total value of Rs. 17,78,52,500/-. For the execution of said work, on 06.05.2013 an agreement was executed with respondent No. 2 who failed to supply the said material within the stipulated period i.e. 15 months. Thereafter, the contract agreement was amended on 06.06.2013 and time was extended for supply till 15.01.2016. Initially, respondent No. 2 submitted the performance bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 75 lakhs, but it failed to furnish any performance bank guarantee for the additional order.

C. Respondent No.2 submitted a bill amounting to Rs. 46,27,70,759/- and after payment and adjustments, the outstanding amount was Rs. 43,60,946/-, out of which, Rs. 10 lakhs was paid to respondent No.2 vide LAC dated

07.07.2018. Thus, the total outstanding amount was Rs.33,60,936/- only.

D. After negotiation, respondent No.2 agreed to have Rs.1.10 crores as a final settlement, out of which, the petitioner released an amount of ⊙ƴ75 lakhs at the first instance and the balance amount was agreed to be released in two installments. Respondent No.2 sent an email on 15.01.2019 requesting the petitioner for payment of ⊙ƴ47 lakhs.

E. When the petitioner failed to make the balance payment, respondent No. 2 filed a claim petition before respondent No.1, which was registered as case number G/05/S/00169/54 under the provisions of Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short, ‘MSMED Act, 2006’) on 31.09.2018, claiming therein the amount of ⊙ƴ7, 89,33,137/-.

F. The petitioner, after receiving notice, filed a reply to the claim petition on

03.04.2019 and disputed the said claim.

G. The petitioner filed WP227 No.22/2021 before this Court challenging therein the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006 thereby making prayer to quash the proceedings on application for reference dated 18.09.2018 on the ground that in conciliation proceedings the provisions of Sections 65 to 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply, but no notice has been issued for conciliation.

H. This Court vide order dated 12.04.2021 allowed the petition and directed respondent No.1/the Micro and Small Industries Facilitation Council to take up proceedings for conciliation according to provisions of Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act, 2006.

I. After the failure of conciliation proceedings, respondent No.1 initiated arbitration proceedings to resolve the dispute that arose between the petitioner and respondent No.2 according to the provisions of Section 18 (2&

3) of the MSMED Act, 2006.

J. The petitioner filed WPC No.4235 of 2021 challenging therein the arbitration proceedings initiated before respondent No.1 an