M/s CMI Ltd. and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present : Mr.Sandeep Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant. **** SUVIR SEHGAL, J. 1. Instant appeal has been filed by the Union of India assailing judgment dated 06.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby objection petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the A & C Act") filed by the appellant against award dated 07.11.2016 passed by the Arbitrator, has been dismissed. 2. Facts in brief may be noticed. 3. Appellant placed purchase orders dated 16.05.2014 and 16.07.2014 for supply of Railways signaling cable copper conductor on claimant respondent No.1, Annexures A1 and A2 for Rs.10,37,14,709.51 and Rs.1,66,97,527.65 and the items were duly supplied. Payment was made against the two purchase orders. Respondent No.1 was registered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on 02022024 22:40:26 ::: Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:011999 2024:PHHC:011999 FAO65332019(O&M) 2 105 MSMED Act") and filed an application, Annexure A4, before the Haryana Micro and Small Enterprises Falicitation Council (for short "the Council") at Chandigarh, claiming interest at the rate of 27% per annum on account of abnormal delay in the payment. After the conciliation proceedings did not fructify, matter was assigned to an Arbitrator, who passed an award dated 07.11.2016 awarding an amount of Rs.21,61,393/in favour of the claimant respondent No.1. While depositing 75% of the awarded amount (Rs.16,21,045/) with the learned Additional District Judge, appellant filed objections under Section 34 of the A & C Act, which have been rejected vide order impugned herein. 4. Counsel for the appellant has urged that respondent No.1 never disclosed that it was registered under the MSMED Act and it was bound by the terms and conditions laid down in the contract between the parties. It is his argument that respondent No.1 could not approach the Council under Section 18 of the MSMED Act and rather under Clause 64(i) of the general conditions of contract, an application was required to have been made before the General Manager of the North Western Railway for appointment of an Arbitrator. By placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Versus M/s S.L. Arora & Company, 2010(3) SCC 690, it has been contended that the Arbitrator could not award compound interest. 5. I have heard counsel for the appellant and examined the record with his able assistance. 6. Dealing with the first argument, it deserves to be mentioned that the counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any column in 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on 02022024 22:40:27 ::: Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:011999 2024:PHHC:011999 FAO65332019(O&M) 3 105 the contract agreement, which made it obligatory for the claimant respondent No.1 to disclose that it was registered under the MSMED Act. Merely nonmentioning about its registration or its status does not imply that respondent No.1 had played a fraud with the appellant. This argument therefore deserves to be rejected. 7. Before dealing with the second argument raised on behalf of the appellant, Section 18 of the MSMED Act deserves to be noticed and is reproduced hereunder: "18. Reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any party to a dispute may, with regard to any amount du