Bangalore District Court Claimant Also Raised Counter Claim. ... vs Respondent In Part By Impugned Award on 27 February, 2023 KABC170017062022 IN THE COURT OF LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH86) THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 PRESENT: SMT. M. LATHAKUMARI. M.A., LL. M., LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. Com. A.P. No. 63/2022 BETWEEN: M/s. Karnataka CNC Tech Pvt. Ltd. Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 Office at No. D103, Industrial Estate, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru560 010 Represented by its Director Sri. Prasanna Dikshit : PETITIONER (Represented by Sri. S.Hemanth Bharadwaj Advocate.) AND 1. M/s. B.H.E.L Bhopal, Prerana Bhavan, BHEL factory, Piplani, Bhopal462 022 2. Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy (Retd.), Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Third floor, east wing, Khanija Bhavan, 2 Com.A.P. 63/2022 Race Course Road, Bengaluru560 001. : RESPONDENTS (Represented by Harshitha M Advocate). Date of Institution of the 23.06.2022 suit Nature of the suit (suit on Arbitration Suit under pronote, suit for Sec. 34 of Arbitration & declaration & Possession, Conciliation Act, 1996 Suit for injunction etc.) Date of commencement of recording of evidence Date on which judgment 27.02.2023 was pronounced Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s 00 08 04 (M.LATHAKUMARI) LXXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act' in short) to set aside the impugned award dated 02.03.2022 passed in Arbitration Case No.147/2016 and to grant such other order as this court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case. 3 Com.A.P. 63/2022 The petitioner herein was the claimant before Arbitral Tribunal and 1st respondent herein was the respondent. 2nd respondent was the arbitrator in A.C. No.147/2016. Parties are referred as petitioner/ claimant and 1st respondent/respondent in this petition for convenience. 2. The brief facts as per petitioner/claimant's case is that it is a registered MSME (Small Enterprise) as per the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act 2006 (MSME Act) and 1st respondent/ respondent is a public sector undertaking of the Government of India. Dispute arose between the parties with regard to various payments withheld against various purchase orders, the matter was refer to the arbitration and conciliation center for adjudication through arbitration. The petitioner/ claimant raised its claims and 1 st respondent/ respondent by resisting the claim of petitioner claimant also raised counter claim. Both parties led their evidence before 2nd respondent and also got marked various documents in support of their contentions, the arbitral tribunal allowed the claim of the petitioner /claimant and counter claim of the 1 st respondent/ respondent in part by impugned award dated 02.03.2022. Aggrieved by the same petitioner/ 4 Com.A.P. 63/2022 claimant challenge the impugned order on following grounds: a) The award passed by the arbitral tribunal is in violation of the provisions Sec. 15 and 24 of the MSMED Act, 2006 and further the arbitral tribunal instead of interpreting the terms of the contract as it is, has sought to rewrite the terms of the contract for the parties. b) The guarantee certificates are unenforceable, since the objection in relation to the acceptance of goods supplied by an MSME if any is to be made in writing within 15 days from the date of supply and if no such objections are made in writing than it would mean that the product is deem to be accepted and then the obligation is on the purchaser to make the payment within 45 days from the date of actual supply. The guarantee certificate are unenforceable as per Sec.15 of the MSMED Act. U/s. 15 of the said Act an obligation is imposed on the buyer to make payments within a time bound period and does not permit for rejection of the item on any ground if on the date of delivery of goods no objection is raised. Hence mentioned that the award has been passed in violation of MSME Act and deserves to be set aside. 5 Com.A.P. 63/2022 c) The arbitral tribunal has not even assigned reason in relation to each of the issues but as consolidatedly held in favour of 1st