[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ayyappa Hydro Power Limited vs The Micro And Small Enterprises ... on 27 January, 2026
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
1
W.A.No.2833 of 2025
2026:KER:6430
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 7TH MAGHA, 1947
WA NO. 2833 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.11.2025 IN WP(C)NO.17972 OF
2025 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 AYYAPPA HYDRO POWER LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT EDCL HOUSE, 1A, ELGIN ROAD, KOLKATA, AND
LOCAL OFFICE AT KARIKAYAM P.O., CHITTAR, RANNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY AND DIRECTOR, NITIN DUTT SHARMA, AGED 35
YEARS, S/O Y.D. SHARMA, B3/1404, TULIP GRAND
APARTMENT, SONIPAT, HARYANA., PIN - 700020
2 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
AYYAPPA HYDRO POWER LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT EDCL HOUSE, 1A, ELGIN ROAD, KOLKATA - 700020
AND LOCAL OFFICE AT KARIKAYAM P.O., CHITTAR, RANNI
TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689663
BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHAJ
SMT.BEENA N.KARTHA
SRI.ARUN CHAND
SHRI.BHARAT VIJAY P.
SMT.MINU VITTORRIA PAULSON
SHRI.KEVIN JAMES
SMT.GOPIKA GOPAL
SMT.ARCHANA P.P.
SHRI.REN SHIBU
SMT.SHEHROON PATEL A.K.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL
KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, WATER WORKS
2
W.A.No.2833 of 2025
2026:KER:6430
COMPOUND, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN -
695033
2 V. VINOD
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, M/S PAN PACIFIC ENGINEERING
SERVICES PVT. LTD., MERRA-17, PRIYA, MENONPARAMBU
ROAD, EDAPALLY, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682024
3 M/S PAN PACIFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MERRA-17,
PRIYA, MENONPARAMBU ROAD, EDAPALLY, ERNAKULAM., PIN -
682024
BY ADVS.SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE
SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
SMT.V.T.LITHA
SMT.K.R.MONISHA
SMT.AFSANA ASHRAF
SHRI.JIJO PAUL
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.A.No.2833 of 2025
2026:KER:6430
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellants are the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.17972 of
2025, which is one filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking
a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 award dated 10.11.2020 in
O.A.No.71 of 2018 of the 1st respondent Micro and Small
Enterprises Facilitation Council, Kerala. The petitioners have also
sought for a declaration that Ext.P5 award is not binding on the
petitioners. In the writ petition, at the admission stage, the
learned Single Judge granted an interim order dated 09.05.2025,
which reads thus;
"Admit.
Issue notice to the respondents by speed post. In view of the
contentions raised that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to
entertain a complaint leading to the issue of Ext.P5 award, there
will be an interim stay as prayed for, for a period of six weeks."
2. On receipt of notice, respondents 2 and 3 entered
appearance and filed a counter affidavit dated 20.06.2025,
producing therewith Exts.R3 and R3(1) to R3(4) documents. The
document marked as Ext.R3 is a copy of the order dated
26.07.2023 of the First Additional Commercial Judge,
Thiruvananthapuram, in O.P.(Arbitration)No.13 of 2022. The said
2026:KER:6430
petition was dismissed after taking note of the statutory
requirement under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium
Enterprises Development Act, 2006, regarding pre-deposit of
75% of the award amount for preferring an application/appeal
for setting aside the award. In the said order, the court has also
referred to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Goodyear
India Limited v. Norton Intech Rubbers Private Limited
[(2012) 6 SCC 345].
3. By the order dated 13.11.2025, the learned Single
Judge extended the interim order dated 09.05.2025 by one
month, on condition that the petitioner remits 75% of the award
amount within two weeks. The said order is under challenge in
this writ appeal.
4. On 27.11.2025, when this writ appeal came up for
consideration, this Court passed a detailed order. Paragraphs 3 to
7 of the said order read thus;
'3. During the course of arguments, on a query made by
this Court, as to whether a copy of Ext.R3 order dated
26.07.2023 of the First Additional Commercial Judge,
Thiruvananthapuram, in O.P.(Arbitration)No.13 of 2022
was placed on record along with W.P.(C)No.17972 of 2025,
the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners would
2026:KER:6430
submit that though a copy of that order was not placed on
record along with the writ petition, the dismissal of that
original petition by the order dated 26.07.2023 was
mentioned in paragraph 12 of the statement of facts.
Paragraph 12 of the statement of facts of W.P.(C)No.17972
of 2025 reads thus;
"12. It is submitted that Ext.P5 award is non est in
law for reasons enumerated below. Since the
award is non est in law, Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not
applicable as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. State of
Rajasthan [2022 (1) KLT 141 (SC)]. The true copy
of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. State of
Rajasthan [2022 (1) KLT 141 (SC)] is produced
herewith and marked as Ext.P11. The 1st petitioner
mistakenly preferred O.P.(Arbitration)No.13 of
2022 challenging Ext.P5 award, which was
dismissed on 26.07.2023 for failure to make the
mandatory pre-deposit as contemplated under
Section 19 of the Act." (underline supplied)
4. As stated by Scrutton, L.J, in R. v. Kensington
Income Tax Commissioners [(1917) 1 K.B. 486], an
applicant who does not come with candid facts and 'clean
breast' cannot hold a writ of the court with 'soiled hands'.
Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an
advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or
misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and
2026:KER:6430
prerogative jurisdiction.
5. In Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India
[(2007) 8 SCC 449] the Apex Court reiterated that a
prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. Therefore, in
exercising extraordinary power, a writ court will indeed
bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such
jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or
suppress relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of
misleading the court, the Court may dismiss the action
without adjudicating the matter. This rule has been evolved
in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants
from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very
basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true,
complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not
candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the
very functioning of the writ courts would become
impossible.
6. In Prestige Lights Limited [(2007) 8 SCC 449] the
Apex Court held further that, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the High Court is exercising
discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction. Over and
above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is,
therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party
approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before
the court without any reservation. If there is suppression
of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted
facts have been placed before the court, the writ court
may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without
entering into merits of the matter.
2026:KER:6430
7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellants-petitioners and also the learned
counsel for respondents 2 and 3, it prima facie appears
that in the writ petition the appellants-petitioners have
made a calculated attempt to suppress material facts from
the notice of this Court. The aforesaid fact, which is a
material fact, in so far as the reliefs sought for in
W.P.(C)No.17972 of 2025 is concerned, does not find a
place in the synopsis as well.
5. Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration,
the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners would submit
that the appellants do not want to prosecute this writ appeal
further and therefore the same may be dismissed as withdrawn.
Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned
counsel for the appellants, this writ appeal is dismissed as
withdrawn.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
AV
