IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P. JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 3629 of 2011(O) ----- ------------------------- OP(AR) 379/2010 of DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ M/S. MAMPARAMBIL TREADS, PIZHAKU P.O., PALA, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER, (JOLLY, W/O. JOSE JOSEPH). BY ADVS. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MATHEW K. SIMON RESPONDENT: --------------------- KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS LAW OFFICER. BY ADV. BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA, SC, KSRTC. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Scl. OP(C).No. 3629 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 SERIES- TRUE COPY OF THE AWARDS IN O.A.NO.26/2006 OF THE KERALA MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL, TRIVANDRUM. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.4.2010 IN SLP NO.9092- ` 9102/2010 OF HON. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN ARB.OP.NO.379/2010. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.7.2011 IN OP(C) 2163/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE SCL. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No. 3629 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T Respondent appears through counsel. 2. This Original Petition is filed by the respondent in O.P. (Arb) No.379/2010 of the court of learned District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. There was an award in favour of petitioner in O.A No.26/2006 under provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. (for short 'the Act'). Respondent challenged that award before the learned District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Act of 1996'). Petitioner raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the Original Petition on the ground that deposit required under Sec. 19 of the Act has not been made and hence the Original Petition to set aside the award is not maintainable. That preliminary objection has not been so far decided. Hence it is prayed that the learned District Judge may be directed to dispose of the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of O.P. (Arb) No. 379/2010. O.P.(C) No. 3629 OF 2011 2 3. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the question whether the amount as required under Section 19 of the Act has been deposited and if so, it satisfied the requirement of the said provision. That is a matter which the learned District Judge has to decide while considering the preliminary objection. The preliminary objection if it is not already disposed of, has to be disposed of by the learned District Judge at the earliest. Resultantly, this Original Petition is disposed of directing the learned District Judge to decide the preliminary objection (if it is not already decided) raised by petitioner as to the maintainability of the original petition O.P.(Arb) before proceeding with the said Original Petition on its merit, as early as possible. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Scl.