Delhi District Court Bhasin Infotech & Infrastruture Pvt Ltd vs Conquerent Control System Pvt Ltd on 31 August, 2021 In the Court of Shri Sanjiv Jain, District Judge (Commercial Court03), Patiala House Courts New Delhi OMP Number. 23/19 Bhasin Infotech & Infrastruture Pvt Ltd, 28 Raja Garden, New Delhi. ... Petitioner/objector versus Conquerent Control System Pvt Ltd Plot No. 604605, Sector 8 IMT Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana. ... Respondent/claimant Date of institution : 01.02.2019 Date of reserving judgment : 25.08.2021 Date of decision : 31.08.2021 JUDGME NT 1. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (as amended upto date) hereinafter called the 'Act' challenges the award dated 30.10.2018 passed by the Ld. Arbitrator Sh. C. B. Jaglian, whereby, a sum of Rs. 45,88,689/ was awarded towards the balance price of goods and interest thereon at the rate provided under Section 16 of the MSME Act, 2006 from 07.11.2017 till the date of payment along with the cost of Rs. 20,000/ which was paid by the respondent towards the fee of the Arbitrator. OMP Comm No. 23/2019 Page No.1 of 16 Brief facts: 2. Briefly the facts are that the respondent, registered as a small manufacturing unit under MSME Act, 2006, carrying on the business of supplying electrical control panel and distribution board, supplied the electrical control panel and distribution boards to the petitioner for about four years. It raised the bills during the said period against which the petitioner released the part payments. The bills relating to the period from 07.05.2015 to 18.04.2016 amounting to Rs. 32,11,514/ remained unpaid. The respondent regularly followed up with the petitioner for release of the payments but the petitioner neither released the payments nor placed further orders. The respondent then made a reference for settlement of disputes to the Chairman, Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Haryana. Since, no settlement could be reached between the parties before the council, the dispute was referred to the Arbitrator by the order of the Government of Haryana vide dated 08.08.2014. The parties put their appearance before the Arbitrator on 10.08.2018. The respondent filed its statement of claims, which the petitioner replied vide dated 21.09.2018 raising the objection about the venue of the arbitral proceedings. The objection was allowed by the Arbitrator and the venue was shifted from Gurgaon to Delhi. It was alleged by the petitioner before the Arbitrator that the OMP Comm No. 23/2019 Page No.2 of 16 invoices filed by the respondent are highly escalated, it has already paid for the invoices in full and now the respondent is claiming for the escalated invoice just to arm twist the petitioner. The respondent filed the documents Ex. C1 to C32 in support of its claims, whereas, the petitioner filed an affidavit of its AR namely Sh. P. N. Joshi Ex. RA and the copy of the board resolution. Ld. Arbitrator, after hearing the parties at length, passed the award. 3. The petitioner challenged the award on the following grounds: A. That the award suffers from patent illegality and is perverse as the Arbitrator did not follow due process of law and conducted the proceedings in an unfair and bias manner without affording equal opportunities to the parties to present their case rendering the award against the public policy of India. B. That the Arbitrator failed to appreciate that the respondent did not file its statement of claims in a proper format, which lacked in necessary details. It had only filed the claims in form 1 before Haryana Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Counter at Chandigarh under which at Point 16, the remedies sought to have been stated to be NIL / MSME. It is stated that if a decision is arrived at on no evidence or the evidence, which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act on it, the order would be perverse. In the present case, both the parties were directed to file their evidence but the respondent neither filed any evidence by way of affidavit nor produced any witness except filing the documents, which were exhibited. It is stated th