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.
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
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.
(2023) 6 SCC 401
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,
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
