Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam ... vs Bansal Generation Limited
2022 Latest Caselaw 3723 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1756/2019

Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Ajmer through its Managing
Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Panchsheel Nagar, Makarwali Road,
Ajmer (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
Bansal Generation Limited, SCO171 First Floor, Sec. 38-C,
Chandigarh, Works-VIII, Nathu Plassi Near Dherowal Barrier
Nalagarh, Distt. Solan (H.P.)
                                                                  ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Virendra Lodha, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Rachit Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr.R.K. Mathur, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Aditya Kiran Mathur, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order

11/05/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

challenging the award dated 03.11.2018 read with award dated

06.07.2018 alleged to be in clear violation of provisions of the

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.

Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Mr.R.K.

Mathur submitted that the present writ petition filed by the

petitioner is not maintainable in wake of availability of statutory

alternative remedy to the petitioner to file an application under

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter

'the Act of 1996').

Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted

that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanghi

(2 of 3) [CW-1756/2019]

Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Micro Small Enterprises & Anr. in

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.591/2018, vide judgment dated

26.04.2018, has upheld the decision of the Single Bench and

therein, the Division Bench has held that writ petition against the

award is not maintainable before this Court and proper remedy for

the aggrieved party is to approach the Competent Court which has

been prescribed under the Act of 1996.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr.Virendra

Lodha submitted that the petitioner has challenged the award

dated 06.07.2018 and amended award dated 03.11.2018 and the

petitioner received copy of said award on 19.11.2018.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the present writ petition has been filed on 15.01.2019 i.e.

within 57 days, after receipt of copy of the award.

Learned Senior Counsel submitted that remedy

available to the petitioner, as per decision rendered by the Division

Bench of this Court, is to file an application under Section 34 of

the Act of 1996.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted

that since the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the

present writ petition within stipulated time, as prescribed under

Section 34 of the Act of 1996, the petitioner since persuaded the

remedy in bonafide manner, may be permitted to file an

application and delay which has been attributed in filing an

application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, may be directed

to be condoned by the Court concerned, where the petitioner now

intends to file an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.

Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the

judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Consolidated

(3 of 3) [CW-1756/2019]

Engineering Enterprises Vs. Principal Secretary Irrigation

Department and Others reported in [(2008)7 SCC 169] and

Simplex Infrastructure Limited Vs. Union of India reported in

[(2019) 2 SCC 455].

Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Mr.R.K.

Mathur submitted that it is for the appropriate Court to consider

the application to be filed by the petitioner and the issue of

limitation is to be decided by the Court concerned, after

considering the entire facts and law.

This Court finds that the present writ petition filed by

the petitioner is not maintainable in view of judgment passed by

the Division Bench in the case of Sanghi Industries Ltd.

(supra).

This Court, however, permits the petitioner to withdraw

this writ petition and the petitioner is at liberty to file an

application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. The petitioner

would be at liberty to file appropriate application for condonation

of delay in filing the application under Section 34 of the Act of

1996. The Court concerned will decide the application of limitation

as per available facts and law.

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed

of.

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

Himanshu Soni/57

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)