R.N.BISWAL, J. ARBA NOS.12 & 13 OF 2007 (Decided on 16.09.2010) M/S. HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. ……….. Appellant. .Vrs. M/S. SATYANARAYAN IRON WORKS (PVT.) LTD. & ANR. ………. Respondents. ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 (ACT NO.26 OF 1996 ) – S.34. For Appellant - M/s. G. Mukherji, P.Mukherji, M.R.Barik & S.Patra. For Respondent- M/s. D.Pati, S.K.Mishra, P.Panigrahi, (For Respondent no.1) R.N. BISWAL,J. The facts and law involved in the both appeals being similar and the appellant being same, they were heard together and the following common order is passed thereon. 2. The appellant is a Govt. of India Enterprise, which runs business in mining activities having its unit at Kolkata. It requires chilled cast iron grinding media balls ( in short cast iron balls ) for its mining activities. The respondents in both the appeals are Small Scale Industrial Units. They are manufactures of cast iron balls. They showed interest to supply the cast iron balls to the appellant, as such, the appellant issued purchase order to both the respondents for supply of the same. On the ground that the appellant did not pay the consideration amount in due time, both the respondents filed claims before Industries Facilitation Council Orissa, Cuttack (herein after referred as IFC ) giving rise to IFA case Nos.1/2004 and 6/2002. After hearing, the IFC made the awards in favour of both the respondents. Being dissatisfied, the appellant challenged both the awards passed in IFC case Nos.1/2004 and 6/ 2002 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as 1996 Act ) before the District Judges, Cuttack giving rise to ARBA Nos. 167/2005 and 168/2005 respectively. It also filed a petition in each of the ARBPs for of stay execution of the awards. The District Judge rejected the same. So the appellant filed W.P.© Nos 16686/2006 and 16685/2006 separately challenging the rejection of stay petitions, before this Court, wherein the District Judge was directed to hear the parties on the question of maintainability of the petitions under Section 34 of the 1996 Act first. So the District Judge heard about the maintainability of the both the cases before it and also on merit. As it appears from the impugned orders, the District Judge held the petitions under Section 34 of the 1996 Act were not maintainable since the awards were passed under Section 1993 Act that admission of the said petitions would be in direct contravention of the mandatory provision contained under Section 7 of the 1993 Act and that the appellant did not deposit 75% of the awarded amount in either of the cases. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued on the maintainability of the petitions filed before the IFC. As it appears from the impugned orders, the appellant filed a writ petition bearing No.5144 of 2004 in the High Court of judicature, Jabalpur, M.P. challenging the jurisdiction of the IFC in entertaining IFC Case No. 1 of 2004. It also filed W.P.© No. 1988 of 2003 in the same High Court, challenging the jurisdiction of IFC in entertaining IFC Case No. 6 of 2002. As it appears, both the writ petitions are pending. So, to avoid conflicting decision, I am not touching the point whether the IFC has jurisdiction to entertain both the petitions under the 1993 Act. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding of the learned District Judge that admission of the applications under Section 34 of the 1996 Act would be in direct contravention of the mandatory provision contained under Section 7 of the 1993 Act, is a serious error of law, inasmuch as the scope and ambit of Section 34 of the 1996 Act cannot be equated with the scope and ambit of Section 7 of the 1993 Act. 5. Appeal lies against the order of IFC, as provided under Section 7 of the 1993 Act. Since the awards passed by the IFC were under Section 6 of the 1993 Act, the appellant ought to have filed appeals under Section 7 of the said Act by depositing 75% of the awarded amount. It has been held by the apex Court in the case of Snehadeep Structure Pvt. Limited vs. Maharastra Small Scale Industries Corporation Ltd. 2010 (3) S.C.C. 34 that even if an arbitration award is challenged before the District Judge under section 34 of the 1996 Act, the petitioner is required to deposit 75% of the awarded amount before the District Judge. In the present cases admittedly the appellant has not done so. So, both the appeals stand dismissed. No cost Appeals dismissed. 2