IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 OP(C).No. 2163 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OPARB.242/2008 of D.C & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: ---------------- SILPI INDUSTRIES, REPRESENTED BY PARTNER, K.GEORGE, DEVELOPMENT AREA, AROOR-688534, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.MATHEW K. SINMON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI. V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC., K.S.R.T.C. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2011, ALONG WITH OPC.NO.2170/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs O.P.(C). NO. 2613/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: ARBITRATION AWARD PASSED BY THE COUNCIL DATED 19/02/2009. P2: COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE SUPREME COURT DATED 12/04/2010 IN SLP(C) NO.9092-9102/2010. P3: PRELIMINARY OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE DISTRICT COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN OP(ARB)242/2008, DATED 29/11/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).Nos.2163 and 2170 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 08th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioners got awards against the respondent, common in these cases from the Council appointed under the Provisions of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short, "the Act”). Respondent challenged the awards in the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P.Nos.242 of 2008, 243 of 2008, 378 of 2010 and 380 of 2010 under Sec.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Petitioners raised preliminary objection that the said petitions are not entertainable since the petitions are not accompanied by deposit of 75% of the amount in terms of the award as required under Sec.19 of the Act. That objection was upheld by the learned District Judge and the petitions were dismissed. Respondent unsuccessfully challenged the said orders in this Court. Later respondent challenged validity of Sec.19 of the Act but failed. The Supreme Court refused to admit the S.L.P. Thereafter respondent deposited 75% of the principal amount awarded in each case in the Court of learned District Judge. Petitioners again raised a preliminary objection as to the entertainability of the petitions on the ground O.P(C).Nos.2163 and 2170 of 2011 -: 2 :- that the deposit made is only of 75% of the principal amount awarded and not 75% of the amount in terms of the award. Exts.P3 and P5, respectively are the preliminary objection preferred by the petitioners. Grievance of petitioners is that learned District Judge has not considered the preliminary objection and instead directed that the preliminary objection could be considered along with original petitions. That direction is under challenge. 2. I have heard learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that 75% of the principal amount awarded by the council has already been deposited and that is sufficient compliance of Sec.19 of the Act. According to learned Senior Advocate, deposit of 75% must be of the amount in terms of the award which means including interest and cost awarded. 3. It is not necessary for me to go into those question in this proceeding. Since entertainability of the original petitions are under challenge based on a statutory provision, it is required to be decided as a primary point. It is only if learned District Judge found that the petitions are entertainable that it is necessary to proceed in the matter and decide whether awards O.P(C).Nos.2163 and 2170 of 2011 -: 3 :- required interference as provided under the law. Hence, decision on the preliminary objection cannot be relegated to the final stage. Resultantly these original petitions are disposed of directing learned District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram to decide the preliminary objection raised by petitioners to the entertainability of the original petitions before proceeding with the original petitions on its merit. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-