Telangana High Court
M/S.Hara Industries Pvt. Ltd, vs Divisional Railway Manager South, on 7 November, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy, N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
C.M.A.Nos.187 OF 2024 AND 512 OF 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr.M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the appellant in C.M.A.No.187 of 2024 and respondent No.1 in C.M.A.No.512 of 2021, Mr. K. Mohan, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in C.M.A.No.187 of 2024 and Ms. L.Pranathi Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government for the appellant in C.M.A.No.512 of 2021. Perused the record.
2. These are two appeals, one filed by the Contractor and the other by the Department of Railways, challenging the order dated 10.08.2021 in A.O.P.No.810 of 2014 passed by the learned II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') petition.
2
3. The two appeals herein are under Section 37 of the Act challenging the aforesaid order passed in the Section 34 petition in A.O.P.No.810 of 2014, decided on 10.08.2024.
4. The ground of challenge primarily by the learned counsel for both the appellants is firstly on the finding arrived at by the learned Court below hearing the Section 34 petition holding it to be not maintainable, keeping in view the provisions of Section 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. Secondly on the ground that on the one hand the Court hearing Section 34 petition holds the application under Section 34 to be not maintainable and at the same time has set aside the award passed by the Andhra Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Hyderabad and has also imposed costs upon the Department of the Railways to the extent of Rs.25,000/-. The setting aside of the award passed by the Facilitation Council was on the ground that the same was not reasoned and speaking order and thus the merits of the case could not have been decided by the Court hearing 3 Section 34 petition in the teeth of its finding the application A.O.P No.810 of 2014 not maintainable under Section 34 of the Act.
5. So far as Section 34 petition challenging an award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council is concerned, the same is no longer res integra, as it has been by now well settled by a series of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as also by various High Courts that against an award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, the remedy to challenge the said award is only that which is provided under the Act i.e., by availing the remedies prescribed under Section 34 as also under Section 37, as the case may be. Two of the recent decisions in this regard of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that of GUJARAT STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED v. MAHAKALI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED (UNIT 2) AND ANOTHER 1 and another recent decision which emanated from this High Court is Special Leave Petition (C) No.9899 of 2023 in the case of M/s INDIA GLYCOLS LIMITED AND ANOTHER v.
1 (2023) 6 SCC 401 4 MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL, MEDCHAL - MALKAJGIRI AND OTHERS, decided on 06.11.2023, wherein the judgment of GUJARAT STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED (supra) has been relied upon and reiterated.
6. Given the said facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the finding of the learned Court below to the extent of holding that the appeal filed by the Department of Railways is not maintainable to be an incorrect finding. The same, therefore, deserves to be and is, accordingly, set aside. We are also inclined to hold that the finding of the Court below in setting aside the award passed by the Facilitation Council also to be erroneous, as once if the application under Section 34 was not maintainable, the Court could not have proceeded further and decided whether the award was proper, legal and justified or not. It could had been only exercised by a Court under Section 34 after finding the Section 34 petition to be maintainable. For this reason also, the impugned order dated 10.08.2021 in A.O.P.No.810 of 2014 passed by the learned II-Additional District Judge, 5 Ranga Reddy District is liable to be set aside and is ordered accordingly. As a consequence, the matter stands remitted back to the learned II-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District hearing Section 34 petition itself, on its own merits in accordance with law. Considering that the A.O.P was that of 2014 and as such more than 10 years old, let the matter be taken up by the learned II-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District on priority basis and ensure that the same is decided within an outer limit by 31.03.2025.
7. With the aforesaid direction, the civil miscellaneous appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J __________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 07.11.2024 Lrkm/Ssm