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 appellantPSPCL and the respondent no.1company 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. Over a period of time dispute arose between the parties regarding payment of interest on delayed payments. The Respondent company filed a Civil Suit for declaration to 1 of 10 ::: Downloaded on 24072022 12:52:40 ::: FAOCARB162022(O&M) # 2# the effect that the respondent company was entitled to compound interest under the Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industries Undertaking, 1993 Act (herein after called as the Act of 1993). In the said suit, the Appellant filed an application under Section 8 of the Act for staying legal proceedings and referring the matter to the Arbitrator. The said application, filed by appellantPSPCL, was allowed and the matter was referred to the Arbitrator to be appointed by PSPCL i.e. PSEB in accordance with terms and conditions of purchase orders/agreements executed between the parties. After the Arbitrator was appointed by PSPCL (PSEB), the respondent company filed its claim before the Arbitrator. Vide award dated 21.7.2008, the Arbitrator rejected the claim filed by the respondent company. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent company filed a petition under Section 34 of the Act, praying for setting aside the impugned award and allowing the claim of respondent company or, in the alternative, for referring the matter to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, office of Director, Department of Industries, Punjab Chandigarh, for final adjudication in view of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred known as MSMED Act, 2006). 3. Vide detailed judgment dated 18.12.2013, the objection petition filed by respondent company was allowed, the impugned award dated 21.7.2008 passed by the Sole Arbitrator was set aside and the matter was referred to the Industry Facilitation Council created under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 to decide the matter as per law. 4. PSPCL i.e. PSEB assailed the judgment dated 18.12.2013 passed by the then learned Addl. District Judge, Patiala before the Hon'ble 2 of 10 ::: Downloaded on 24072022 12:52:41 ::: FAOCARB162022(O&M) # 3# High Court. Vide order dated 18.8.2015, passed in FAO no.2668 of 2014, the Hon'ble High Court upheld the judgment dated 18.12.2013 passed by the then learned Addl. District Judge, Patiala. 5. Meanwhile the parties lead their respective evidence before the Council. On the basis of the calculation submitted upto 30.04.2015 which were got verified from PSIDS, the Council passed an award of Rs.3,80,57,630/ upto 30.04.2015 along with interest at the rate of 21.75% with monthly rests w.e.f. 1.5.2015 till the date of realization. 6. Aggrieved by the said award the appellantPSPCL filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 impugning the said Award which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 24.02.2021. 7. The learned Counsel for the PSPCL has argued that the respondents are not covered under the