IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2744 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------- [ORDER DTD. 09/08/2011 IN UNNUMBERED O.P(ARB.) OF DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM] ............. PETITIONER: ------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,S.C, K.S.E.B. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. M/S. RAPHEAEL & CO., CHERPU P.O., THRISSUR, REP. BY SRI.V.P.RAPHEAL-680 561. 2. THE KERALA STATE MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES, FACILITATION COUNCIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN (DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, MICRO & SMALL ENTERPRISE FACILITATION COUNCIL, KERALA. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(CIVIL).NO.2744/2011-O: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 09/08/2011 IN UNNUMBERED O.P.(ARB.,) OF 2011 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.2744 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 19th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT The challenge in this original petition is to the order dated August 09, 2011 passed by learned District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in an Unnumbered O.P.(Arb) of 2011. That petition was filed under Sec.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Act”) challenging an award passed under the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short, "the Development Act”). As per Sec.19 of the Development Act, no application for setting aside a decree, award or other order made either by the Council itself or by any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services to which a reference is made by the Council, shall be entertained by any Court unless the appellant (not being a supplier) has deposited with it 75% of the amount in terms of the decree, award or, as the case may be, the other order in the manner directed by such Court, a proviso is also added to the said provision. According to the learned Senior Advocate, petitioner in compliance of the said requirement has produced fixed deposit receipt for `.1,06,10,282/- which satisfied 75% of O.P(C).No.2744 of 2011 -: 2 :- the amount in terms of the award. But, learned District Judge has taken the view that production of the fixed deposit receipt is not sufficient and is not in compliance with Sec.19 of the Development Act. It is pointed out by learned Senior Advocate that precedents of the same Court would show that on earlier occasions fixed deposit receipts were being accepted as sufficient compliance with Sec.19 of the Development Act. It is also submitted by learned Senior Advocate that production of fixed deposit receipt tantamount to deposit of the amount itself in Court. 2. I am inclined to think that the issue ought to have been decided by the learned District Judge with notice to the respondents as well. If there were precedents in the same Court where the fixed deposit receipts were accepted it is open to the petitioner to point out the same also to the learned District Judge. Of course learned District Judge has to act in accordance with Sec.19 of the Development Act whether or not there are such precedents. 3. Since I held that the impugned order should have been passed after hearing respondent as well I am inclined to set aside the order. O.P(C).No.2744 of 2011 -: 3 :- Resultantly this original petition is allowed. The order dated August 09, 2011 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court of learned District Judge for fresh decision after giving notice of the unnumbered petition to the respondents and hearing them as well. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-