AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thomas P. Joseph, J.—Petitioner has suffered an award in O.A. No. 27 of 2005 of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Thiruvananthapuram. Challenging that award petitioner preferred a petition before learned District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram u/s 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short, "the Act") read with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Arbitration Act"). That petition was not numbered since according to the office of the learned District Judge the petition was not accompanied by a deposit as required u/s 19 of the Act. In the meantime respondent in whose favour the award was passed filed E.P. No. 70 of 2010 in the same court and Rs. 1,50,00,000/- has been attached and brought to the court. That was followed by the respondent filing application for issue of cheque for the said amount. That application was allowed rejecting objection of petitioner. That order is under challenge in this Original Petition. It is contended by leaned counsel for petitioner that petition u/s 19 of the Act read with Section 34 of the Arbitration Act has already been laid before the learned District Judge. There is also an application (I.A. No. 2040 of 2010) filed by the petitioner to dispense with deposit contemplated u/s 19 of the Act in view of the attachment of the amount at the instance of respondent which according to the learned counsel is sufficient security/deposit as contemplated u/s 19 of the Act. It is also contended that if before I.A. No. 2040 of 2010 is disposed of respondent withdraws the sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent contends that O.P(Arb.) is not maintainable not merely for want of deposit u/s 19 of the Act but also for other reasons including, not filing the application even within the time which the court could extend u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Question whether O.P(Arb.) is maintainable before learned District Judge or not in the light of the contentions raised by the parties is a matter which the learned District Judge has to decide. So far as the withdrawal of the amount attached and in deposit in court is concerned it is agreed by counsel on both sides that I.A. No. 2040 of 2010 and the maintainability of O.P(Arb.) pending before learned District Judge could be heard on 11.10.2010 to which day the matter stands posted, that both sides will not seek adjournment for hearing and the learned District Judge may be directed to dispose of the matter as early as possible. Learned Senior Advocate states that until orders are passed on I.A. No. 2040 of 2010 pending before learned District Judge respondent will not seek withdrawal of the amount in deposit and as ordered on the application for cheque.
Resultantly, this Original Petition is disposed of in the following lines.
(i) Submission made by counsel on both sides that the parties will not seek adjournment for hearing of I.A. No. 2040 of 2010 and maintainability of O.P(Arb.) filed before the learned District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram when the matter comes up for hearing on 11.10.2010 is recorded.
(ii) Learned District Judge shall as far as possible hear the matter on the same day and pass appropriate orders at the earliest.
(iii) Undertaking made by learned Senior Advocate that respondent will not withdraw the amount in deposit until orders are passed by the learned District Judge on I.A. No. 2040 of 2010 is recorded.
Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment to the court of learned District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram forthwith.