Marinecraft Engineers Private Limited For the petitioner : Mr. Krishnaraj Thaker, Adv., Mr. Ashok Kr. Jena, Adv. For the respondent : Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay, Adv., Mr. S. Bhattacharya, Adv., Ms. Anewesha Guha Roy, Adv., Mr. Abhijit Guha Roy, Adv. Heard on : 08.07.2024, 29.11.2024, 31.01.2025, 25.04.2025 and 16.05.2025. Hearing concluded on : 16.05.2025. Judgment on : 13.06.2025. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.: 1. The present application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act") has been preferred against an award passed in respect of a claim filed by the respondent herein 2 in a reference under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short, "the 2006 Act"). 2. Initially, conciliation proceedings commenced under Section 18(2) of the 2006 Act. Subsequently, the present petitioner having failed to appear in the said proceedings, it was recorded by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (in brief, "the Council") that the conciliation had terminated. The dispute was accordingly taken up for resolution by arbitration under subsection (3) of the Section 18 of the 2006 Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the impugned award is a nullity, since the mandate of the Council as the arbitral tribunal had already terminated when the award was passed, by operation of Section 29A of the 1996 Act, the provisions of which statute were applicable in terms of Section 18(3) of the 2006 Act. The mandatory timeline as stipulated in Section 29A(1) of the 1996 Act, it is argued, had expired before passing of the award. 4. Learned counsel next argues that the principles of natural justice were violated by the Council in failing to grant adequate opportunity to the present petitioner to place its case on merits before the Council. It is argued that initially the matter came up for conciliation. Upon termination of the conciliation, however, no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to argue its case on merits. The Council proceeded on the premise that the parties had already placed their respective cases by way of their written statements; however, denying opportunity to advance oral arguments to the petitioner. This, it is contended, brings the award within the purview of Section 34 of 3 the 1996 Act for violation of the fundamental policy of Indian Law and basic notions of justice. 5. The petitioner next argues that no GC3 Form was submitted by the respondent/claimant, which was mandatory for disbursal of the dues of the claimant as per the contract between the parties, as borne out by the tender document. Thus, the award is vitiated, having not taken into consideration such aspect of the matter and the legal effect thereof. It is argued that the claimant/respondent did not become entitled to get its dues, even if any, in view of nonsubmission of such Form. 6. On merits, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the Council erred in law and committed patent illegality in allowing the respondent‟s claims in respect of the illegal deductions and interests and other aspects of the matter. It is submitted that the Council could not have proceeded on the concessions given during conciliation proceedings but ought to have independently adjudicated the dispute on merits by granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. It is further submitted that the C