58 82, the award was passed in favour of the respondent.
That order was challenged by the appellant herein by filing Revision Petition before the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.
Against this order, the appellant filed the appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
This appeal was allowed by the High Civil Appeal No.
These proceedings culminated into Award dated June 21, 2010.
That application was, however, dismissed by the High Court.
58 82.
As many as 82 claims were filed by the respondent before Haryana Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council hereinafter referred to as Arbitral Council .
The appellant specifically refuted this claim.
In spite thereof, application under Section 9 was filed before the NCLT, Hyderabad which was dismissed by it vide order dated April 09, 2018.
The respondent herein filed execution petition under Order XXI Rule 21 of the CPC for execution of judgment dated January 29, 2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana as well as the award dated June 21, 2010 passed by the Arbitral Council.
In respect of Invoice Nos.
This application was entertained and both the petitions were directed to be dealt with simultaneously vide orders dated August 17, 2016.
The Arbitral Council came to the companyclusion that the claims made on the basis of Invoice Nos.
1 57 were barred by law of limitation and, therefore, numberamount companyld be awarded against the said claims.
1 57 as time barred, the respondent herein filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh.
The Additional District Judge passed the order dated August 28, 2014 in the said application thereby remanding the case back to the Arbitral Council for fresh decision.
It may be mentioned at this stage that when the appeal was pending before the High Court, the respondent had moved an application for clarification review of order dated August 28, 2014.
9597 of 2018 Page 4 of 19 Court by its order dated January 29, 2016 thereby setting aside the direction of the Additional District Judge remanding the matter to Arbitral Council for fresh companysideration.
In these proceedings, we are number companycerned with the award in respect of Invoice Nos.
Against the aforesaid award rejecting claims in respect of Invoice Nos.
It is in appeal against the said order, the NCLAT has number passed the impugned order.
To put it briefly at this stage, the NCLT, after detailed deliberations, has companye to the companyclusion that the Company Petition filed by the respondent was number maintainable as the claims which were preferred by the respondent against the appellant and on the basis of which respondent asserts that it has to receive monies from the appellant are number tenable and in any case these are number disputed claims.
K. SIKRI, J. The order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi for short, NCLAT dated September 04, 2018 is the subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings.
