Kerala High Court Managing Director vs Radhakrishnan Unnithan on 11 November, 2015 PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/20TH KARTHIKA, 1937 WP(C).No. 3618 of 2015 (B) PETITIONER(S): MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KUMBAKONAM LTD, THIRUMAYAM ROAD, PUTHUKOOTAITAMIL NADU, PIN622 001. BY ADVS.SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC SMTSHEEBA JOSEPH SRI.BOBBYMATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM RESPONDENT(S): 1. RADHAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.RAYAMANDS RUBBERS (PRIVATE) LTD., VALIYAVEETTIL VADAKKETHIL, KAPPIL EAST, KRISHNAPURAM P O, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA690 533. 2. MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN (DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE), VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 001. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM SRI.THOMAS GEORGE R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.PADMALAYAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11112015, ALONG WITH WPC. 20042/2015, AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: msv/ WP(C).No. 3618 of 2015 (B) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1:TRUE COPY OF OA NO 29/09 APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL KERALA P2:TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY PETITIONER P3:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO 35/06 OF THE MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL KERALA P4:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO 29/09 MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL KERALA RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE Msv/ A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. ************************************************************************************************* W.P.(C) Nos.3618, 20042, 20046, 22935 & 30781 of 2015 ************************************************************************************************** Dated this the 11th day of November, 2015 JUDGMENT These writ petitions are filed challenging the award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council Kerala at Thiruvananthapuram. There is no dispute to the fact that the relationship between the parties have to be governed by the Interest on Delayed Payment to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (for short, the 'Act 32/1993'). However, the petitioner has a challenge in these writ petitions on being aggrieved by the award passed under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short, the 'MSMED Act'). 2. The case of the petitioner is two folds. Firstly, the MSMED Act would not apply in this matter. Secondly, the W.P.(C) No.3618/2015 and conn. cases 2 claim of the party respondent is barred by limitation and therefore, the Arbitration Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass such an award. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the party respondent would point out that the petitioner has a statutory remedy by challenging the award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the 'Arbitration Act') read with Section 19 of the MSMED Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court to bypass the rigour of Section 19 of the MSMED Act. It is also submitted that the writ petitions are filed after one year of the award. 4. The transaction is prior to 2006. Admittedly, the award has been passed under the MSMED Act. The petitioner's case is that at the time of transaction, they are governed by the Act 32/1993 and the same was repealed in the W.P.(C) No.3618/2015 and conn. cases 3 MSMED Act. Therefore, any award can be passed only in terms of Act 32/1993. It is further submitted that no arbitration proceedings can be initiated in terms of the Act 32/1993 as the same is barr