IN THE HON'BLE JQGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETITIONNO. ^?^(^f> OF 2006 'i- BETWEEN: Kirloskar AAF Limited, a company incorporated and functionmg under tfae provisions ofthe Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered OfBce at 143-C-4 (Part), Bonnnasandra Industrial Area, Hosur Road, Bangalore - 563 158, represented by its Vice Piesident, Mr. V T Jairaj .^•fe ^e^2^ ^iS^^. V**'*** ...6* ^"--i*':1-.jb.--"' ;oy a*.6&-" PETITIONER s AND 1. The Industry Facilitation Council, nd ^' LIC Commercial Complex , 2 FIoor, Pandre, Raipur (Chattisgarh) ;?1 .<•'• ^ •.']"s: c' 2. M/s. Graduate Agro & Mechanical Engineers, ^ 19-A, Light Industrial Aiea, Bhilai, Durg (C.G.), fhrough its Partner Shri. Vinay Kumar Agrawal 3. StateofChhattisgarh, thiough the Secretary, Department oflndustry, at the Secretariat, Raipur (C. G.) RESPONDENTS MEMORANDUM OF WMT PETITION UNCER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BMDIA K" ;y B^l ^& i^if lM^<i Versus Qrioskar AAF Lim(te< lnrli??d°nf P^nllH'^f^rt rlnn.r1;^f1 ar;r? £E^:trA^'^i^i ^L ^ Z<iLJri^'i^iI^^.it.^?;t-^7 'j '^rf- W'ifl;.^ i"[.t;':' .^ €.'^ '•.;,^ Shri P.S. Koshw, with Shri Surana, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Varun Sharma, counsel for respondent No.2. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyerforthe State/responderrt No.3. None appears for respondent No.1 lon of learC on admisslon. (2) Admittedly, the a'ward (Annexure-P/1) lispatehed on 17.06.2003 delivered by the 1 ^Quncil as arbitrator iinder Section 6 of the Inten :layment to Small Scale AnciStary industrial ted 28 OR ^nO'1 •^\^i .-^a'^/ ^ ^^'^F^ -£-i-4*-' ^-"^"' j^n.f l-'^r^J!lhsti^n •^W^l '-S i '-'tir^i.'.^^T<^V^'^-^^ -•• it on the Dslayed Undertakings Act, (3) Sub-Sectfon 2 of Section 8 of the Ad 1993 provides that the provisions of the Arbitration Conciliation Act 1996 app'y to such as if the arbitration or conciiiation were pursuarrt to an irbftration referred to sub-Section 1 ofs Section 7 of that act. (Act 1996). (4) The impugned order, therefore, is appealable under Section 34 of the Act 1996 wfth Section 7 of the Act 1993. I" view of ths ayai!ability ot alternative remedy of filing an against the impugned this Court finds that ths instant writ petit'on ;s "oi imairrtainabte. f< ^Sh •%, <1-..- (5) At this stage; Shri Koshy, learned counsel for the petit'oner Tor withdrawaS of the wrft petftion. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to wfthdraw the wrtl petftion wifrs liberty to prefer an appea' En accordance wth iaw. IT any such appeql is ftted, along with an application for condonation of delay, the shail be disposed of in accordanc-e 'mth iaw and in view the pendency of this writ ^m (6) The writ petftion is dismissed as withdrawn mth aforesaid liberty (7) Interim order vaci sai- Prashant Kurnar Mishra Judge