M/s Sangrur Industrial Corporation Ltd. & Anr. ......Respondents. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Ms. Ekjot Sandhu, Advocate for the Appellant. *** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The present first appeal has been preferred against the order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala acting as Commercial CourtI, Patiala vide which the objection petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the appellant PSPCL against the award dated 27.08.2015 announced by the MSE Facilitation Council, Chandigarh has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellantPSPCL and the respondentcompany entered into several agreements in pursuance of which purchase orders were issued in favour of the respondent company and transactions were carried on between the parties. The condition as mentioned in Clause 3 of the Contract agreement, regarding payment of material supplied against the supply orders, was binding upon the parties. 1 of 10 ::: Downloaded on 24072022 12:53:27 ::: FAOCARB172022(O&M) # 2# The said clause is reproduced below: "3. TERMS OF PAYMENT 100% of the contract value pro rata for each consignment of operationally complete equipment dispatched after approval of inspecting authority/test Certificates etc. along with 100% sales tax, Excise Duty and other statutory Levies as per contract shall be paid within 30 days against receipt challans subject to furnishing a bank guarantee of 5% of the amount valid for a period of three moths after receipt of material'/equipment against that consignment." Though the payment clause in all the purchase orders was the same, in purchase order H11918 and H11985 the payment was to be made within 45 days and in purchase orders no.H11890 and H11927 the payment was to be made by the appellantPSPCL within 30 days. Since a bank guarantee was furnished in terms of the payment clause, PSPCL was bound to make 100% payment of the receipt challans within 45 days and 30 days, respectively, in the two sets of purchase orders, as mentioned above. However, the payment was not made within 30/45 days from the day the material was delivered to the PSPCL store thereby causing delay in payment, which led to disputes between the two sides. 3. The appellantPSPCL declined the claim of the respondent Claimant company for interest. The respondent/claimant company, accordingly, filed a claim petition before Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council at Chandigarh (hereinafter called the Council) raising the following claim upon PSPCL: Sr.No. Purchase Order No. Amount a. H11980/Q3870/POT Rs.58,99,286/ b. H11918/Q3881/POT Rs. 2,23,048/ 2 of 10 ::: Downloaded on 24072022 12:53:27 ::: FAOCARB172022(O&M) # 3# c. H11927/Q3878/POT Rs.42,78,605/ d. H11985/Q3897/POT Rs. 97,478/ 4. The appellant contested the claim of the Respondent/Complainant company for interest, on account of delayed payment, with the averment that the Claimant company had accepted the payments as full and final payment without any protest and was, therefore, estopped from making any further claim. 5. The entitlement of the respondent/Claimant Company as being a supplier under Section 2(1)(n) of the Act was also disputed and it was prayed that the claimant does not answer the definition of Small scale industry, as stipulated in Section 7 of the Act, and the claimant company, therefore, could not seek protection of the Act. 6. The claim was further resisted by challenging the rationality and constitutionality of the Act. 7. The parties led evidence before the Counci