Karnataka High Court M/S Crompton Greaves Ltd vs M/S Annapurna Electronics on 20 August, 2013 Equivalent citations: AIR 2014 (NOC) 2 (KAR.), 2013 (4) AKR 549 1 ® DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.12465/2010 (GMRES) Between: M/S Crompton Greaves Ltd. a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at: CG House Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai400030, And also its location at 10A, Jigani Industrial Area Anekal Taluk Bangalore Rural District Bangalore 562 106 Rep. by its Manager Corporate Legal Shri Banlumlang W. Phira ... Petitioner (By Sri Uday Holla, Sr. Counsel & Sri L.A. Rubens, Adv. for M/S Holla and Holla) And: 1. M/S Annapurna Electronics No.1/4, B1, NGEF Guest House Near ESI Hospital Road Krishnaiahna Palya Bangalore560038 2. The Karnataka Industries Facilitation Council Khanija Bhavana, High Grounds 2 Bangalore560 001 By Its Chairman/ The Commissioner for Industrial Development and Director of Industries Commerce Bangalore 3. President, Karnataka Small Scale Industries Association (KASSIA) No.2/106, 17th Cross Magadi Chord Road Vijayanagar, Bangalore560040 4. The General Manager, SLBC Syndicate Bank Regional Office No. 69 9th Main, III Block Jayanagar, Bangalore560011 5. The Executive Director(Finance) Karnataka State Financial Corporation RecoveryII, Head Office KSFC Bhavan No.1/1, Thimmaiah Road Bangalore560052 ... Respondents (By Sri M.G.S. Kamal, Adv. for M/s. Kamal & Bhanu for R1 R25 is not necessary at present) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dt.1.4.10, passed in Arbitration Suit No.44/08 by the Court of VI Addl. City Civil Judge Bangalore City [CCH11] Vide AnnM & grant such other & further reliefs as are just. This Writ Petition is having been reserved for orders, coming on for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following: 3 ORDER The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 01.04.2010 in Arbitration Suit No.44/2008, passed by the VI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. The said order is impugned at AnnexureM to the petition. 2. The facts in brief which has lead to the impugned order is that the petitioner and first respondent had entered into an agreement dated 01.04.2004 relating to providing infrastructure and personnel to enable the petitioner to execute the work order dated 29.04.2002 awarded by M/s Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd. The details of difference or dispute between the parties relating to its terms need not be adverted to, but the fact remains that due to certain dispute the first respondent claiming to be a 'Supplier' as defined under Section 2(f) of The Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 ('IDPSSAIU Act' for short) approached the Karnataka Industrial Facilitation 4 Council ('KIFC' for short) under Section 6(2) of the said Act. During the pendency of the proceedings, the said Act was repealed with effect from 02.10.2006 and The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ('MSMED Act' for short) was enacted to replace the same. The Conciliation and Arbitration proceedings continued under the new Act. The same culminated in the award dated 14.07.2008. 3. The petitioner herein claiming to be aggrieved by the said award has invoked the remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('A & C Act' for short) which should be in terms of Section 19 of the MSMED Act. In the pending proceedings, the first respondent has filed an application under Section 19 of the MSMED Act praying that the suit be rejected since 75% of the arbitral award amount has not been deposited. Alternatively, it was sought that the petitioner herein be directed to deposit the amount. The application was objected to by the petitioner herein. The Court below after considering the 5 rival contentions in detail has by its order dated 01.04.2010 arrived at its conclusion to allow the application and permit the petitioner herein to deposit 75% of the award amount. It is against the said order, the petition