ORDER : UJJAL BHUYAN, J. 1. This case was heard on 19.07.2018 and today is fixed for delivery of orders. Heard Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. Assam Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, a State Government Corporation has filed the present writ petition, assailing the legality and correctness of the award dated 31.03.2011, passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Assam, as well as for quashing the proceedings in Money Execution No. 13/2012, pending before the Court of learned District Judge, Kamrup (Metro). 3. Case of the petitioner is that it has been incorporated with the objective of development and promotion of small industries/enterprises in the State of Assam. Its functioning is governed by two enactments, namely, Assam Preferential Stores Purchase Act, 1989, a State Act, and the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, a central enactment. In both the enactments, petitioner would be included within the definition of "supplier". As per Sections 15 and 17 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (Development Act), "buyer" is under the obligation to make payment to the "supplier". Under the Assam Preferential Stores Purchase Act, 1989 (Purchase Act), petitioner is mandated to patronize the products of small scale and cottage industries on preferential basis and to rationalize the procedure for purchase of stores required by the State Government Institutions, Government companies and State Government Undertakings. 4. During the year 1992-93, Directorate of Health Service, Assam as "buyer" placed indents with the petitioner for supply of medicines and accordingly, petitioner placed order for supply of medicines with M/s. JD Pharmaceuticals, i.e., respondent No. 2. M/s. Siva Trade and Agencies, i.e., respondent No. 3 was the authorized dealer of respondent No. 2 for supply of medicines manufactured by respondent No. 2. 5. According to the petitioner, after such procurement, the medicines were supplied to the Directorate of Health Services, where after, petitioner as supplier raised demand for payment of the bills before the Directorate of Health Services, Assam. Though some payments were made, balance payments remained outstanding, for which respondent Nos. 2 and 3 instituted Money Suit No. 201/1999 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kamrup. Though some payments were made, balance payments remained outstanding, for which respondent Nos. 2 and 3 instituted Money Suit No. 201/1999 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kamrup. Petitioner was arrayed as a defendant in the suit, which was contested by the petitioner by taking the stand that under the Purchase Act, petitioner was merely an intermediary providing market assistance to small scale industries. After enactment of the Development Act, on a request made by the plaintiffs, i.e., respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Civil Court referred the matter to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council constituted under the Development Act. It is contended that though in the suit Directorate of Health Services was a defendant, Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (Council) declined to make the said directorate a party to the proceedings before it. Ultimately award dated 31.03.2011 was passed by the Council directing the petitioner to make payment to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 6. Since payment was not released by the Directorate of Health Services, Assam, petitioner could not satisfy the award. In the meanwhile, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 instituted Money Execution No. 13/2012 before the Court of District Judge, Kamrup for execution of the award dated 31.03.2011. 7. Assailing the legality and correctness of the award dated 31.03.2011 as well as the proceedings in Money Execution No. 13/2012, the present writ petition came to be filed. 8. Primary contention of the petitioner is that it is a supplier under the Development Act and it supplied medicines to the Directorate of Health Services, which acted as the buyer. Being the supplier, petitioner could not have been fastened with the liability as per the impugned award. It is the Directorate of Health Services, which is the buyer and being the buyer, it is under the legal obligation to satisfy the award. Since the Directorate of Health Services, Assam was not a party to the proceedings before the Council, the same has vitiated the award. That apart, execution proceedings have also been assailed on the ground that there is no provision in the Development Act for execution of an award like a decree under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, unlike the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 9. It is in the backdrop of the above contentions that the relief as indicated above has been sought for by the petitioner. 10. 9. It is in the backdrop of the above contentions that the relief as indicated above has been sought for by the petitioner. 10. This Court by order dated 30.04.2014, had issued notice and stayed further proceedings in Money Execution No. 13/2012. 11. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed a common affidavit. Stand taken in the affidavit is that in the context of the agreement between petitioner and respondent No. 2, petitioner is not a supplier, but it is the buyer. Being the buyer, petitioner is under the legal obligation to make payment to respondent No. 2. There was no privity of contract between petitioner and Directorate of Health Services; the contract was between petitioner and respondent No. 2. Therefore, in that context, petitioner was the buyer and respondent No. 2 was the supplier. This aspect was gone into by the Council, where after, the award was rightly passed. Another contention advanced by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is that under Section 19 of the Development Act, no application for setting aside any decree, award or order shall be entertained by any Court unless 75% of the decretal amount or awarded amount is deposited by the applicant. The same having not been deposited by the petitioner, the writ petition is not maintainable. It is further stated that before filing the writ petition, petitioner had filed objection in the execution proceeding raising identical objections, which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup, vide order dated 23.04.2010. Lastly, it is contended that the issue raised in the writ petition has been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in a civil appeal filed by the petitioner against respondent No. 2, which is reported in (2005) 13 SCC 19 ; (Assam Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited Vs. J.D. Pharmaceuticals). Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, therefore, seek dismissal of the writ petition. 12. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Also perused the materials on record. 13. Though facts are not in dispute and lie within a narrow compass, however to place the matter in proper perspective, it would be apposite to make a brief reference to the facts of the case. 14. As stated by the petitioner, in year 1992-93, Directorate of Health Services, Assam placed indent with the petitioner for supply of medicines. 13. Though facts are not in dispute and lie within a narrow compass, however to place the matter in proper perspective, it would be apposite to make a brief reference to the facts of the case. 14. As stated by the petitioner, in year 1992-93, Directorate of Health Services, Assam placed indent with the petitioner for supply of medicines. Petitioner has described itself as a facilitator whose mandate is to develop and promote small scale industries and enterprises of the State. On receipt of such indent, petitioner placed an order for supply of medicines with respondent No. 2, of which respondent No. 3 was the authorized dealer. After respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had supplied the medicines to the petitioner, it, in turn, supplied the same to the Directorate of Health Services. 15. It may be mentioned that an agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 on 27.04.1993, encompassing supply of medicines by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner as per provisions of the Purchase Act. It appears that the supplies made were worth Rs. 20,72,972.00 and payments to the tune of Rs. 5,33,435.00 were received. 16. Thereafter, the suit was instituted by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, where after on request of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the matter was referred to the Council, where also, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 made an application under Section 18 of the Development Act, pursuant to which, the impugned award was passed. 17. The provisions of the Purchase Act were gone into in detail by the Supreme Court in Assam Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited (supra). The said Act was enacted for encouraging growth of industries in the State of Assam, especially, small scale and cottage industries and for taking measures ancillary thereto. The State intended to patronize the products of the small scale and cottage industries on preferential basis and to rationalize the procedure for purchase of stores required by the State Government institutions, Government companies and State Government undertakings. It was held by the Supreme Court that the plaintiff, i.e., respondent No. 2 herein, is a small scale industrial unit, registered under the petitioner and fulfills all the criteria laid down in the Purchase Act. The other portion of the judgment deals with buyer and seller, which would be dealt with in the subsequent stage of the judgment. It was held by the Supreme Court that the plaintiff, i.e., respondent No. 2 herein, is a small scale industrial unit, registered under the petitioner and fulfills all the criteria laid down in the Purchase Act. The other portion of the judgment deals with buyer and seller, which would be dealt with in the subsequent stage of the judgment. Suffice it to say that the Supreme Court had examined the Purchase Act in detail declaring that it was un-disputably a beneficial legislation with a purpose behind enacting it. 18. The Development Act was enacted in the year 2006, whereby the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 was repealed. The preamble to the Act mentions that the Development Act has been enacted to provide for facilitating the promotion and development and enhancing the competitiveness of micro, small and medium enterprises and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. At this stage, it would be useful to refer to the statement of objects and reasons leading to enactment of the Development Act. There was no definition of small scale industry. A definition was provided by a notification issued under Section 11B of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. Section 29B of the aforesaid Act provides for notifying reservation of items for exclusive manufacture in the small scale industrial sector. Except for these two provisions, no legal framework was in existence to cater to the needs of this dynamic and vibrant sector of the Indian economy. Several expert groups and committees made suggestions from time to time emphasizing the need for a comprehensive central enactment to provide appropriate legal framework for this sector to facilitate its growth and development. In the meanwhile, the country has witnessed emergence of the services sector in a big way. In fact, the world over, the emphasis has shifted from industries to enterprises. Policy makers also felt it necessary to extend policy support to the small enterprises to enable them to withstand the competition in the open economy and also to achieve higher productivity. Therefore, to address the concerns of the small and medium enterprises sector and to provide the said sector with a single legal framework, the Development Act was framed. 19. Section 2(d) explains 'buyer' to mean whoever buys any goods or receives any services from a supplier for consideration. Therefore, to address the concerns of the small and medium enterprises sector and to provide the said sector with a single legal framework, the Development Act was framed. 19. Section 2(d) explains 'buyer' to mean whoever buys any goods or receives any services from a supplier for consideration. On the other hand, 'supplier' has been defined under Section 2(n) to mean a micro or small enterprise and would include Small Industries Development Corporation of a State, like the petitioner, who is engaged in selling goods produced by the micro or small enterprises and rendering services, which are provided by such enterprises. 19.1. Pausing here for a moment, on a careful analysis of the definition of 'buyer' and 'supplier', as above, what comes to the fore is that a 'buyer' is one who buys goods or receives any service from a supplier for consideration. On the other hand, a 'supplier' would mean a micro or small enterprise, including Small Industries Development Corporation of a State and engaged in selling goods produced by micro and small enterprises as well as rendering services, which are provided by such enterprises. 20. Section 7 deals with classification of enterprises. If an enterprise is engaged in manufacture or production of goods pertaining to any industry specified in the first schedule of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, then the micro enterprises would mean an enterprise, where the investment in plant and machinery does not exceed twenty-five lakh rupees; it would be a small enterprise, where the investment is more than twenty-five lakhs but does not exceed five crore rupees; and a medium enterprise, where the investment is more than five crore rupees, but does not exceed ten crore rupees. In the case of an enterprise engaged in providing or rendering of services, it would be a micro enterprise, where the investment in equipment is not more than ten lakh rupees, it would be a small enterprise where investment is more than ten lakh rupees but does not exceed two crore rupees; or a medium enterprise where the investment in equipment is more than two crore rupees, but does not exceed five crore rupees. 21. 21. Under Section 11, for facilitating promotion and development of micro and small enterprises, the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may notify from time to time, preference policies in respect of procurement of goods and services, produced and provided by micro and small enterprises, by its Ministries or departments or by its aided institutions and public sector enterprises. 22. Section 15 deals with liability of buyer to make payment. It says that where any supplier has supplied any goods or renders any services to any buyer, the buyer shall make payment therefore on or before the date agreed upon between the buyer and seller in writing which, in any case should not exceed 45 days from the date of acceptance or the day of deemed acceptance. 23. As per Section 16, where any buyer fails to make payment to the supplier, the buyer shall notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement between the buyer and the supplier or in any law for the time being in force, be liable to pay compound interest with monthly rests to the supplier on that amount from the appointed day or, as the case may be, from the date immediately following the date agreed upon, at three times of the bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank. Section 17 says that for any good supplied or services rendered by the supplier, the buyer shall be liable to pay the amount with interest thereon as provided under Section 16. 24. Section 18 deals with reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, which has already been referred to as Council hereinbefore. Section 18 is quoted hereunder:- "18. Reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any party to a dispute may, with regard to any amount due under Section 17, make a reference to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. Section 18 is quoted hereunder:- "18. Reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any party to a dispute may, with regard to any amount due under Section 17, make a reference to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. (2) On receipt of a reference under Sub-Section (1), the Council shall either itself conduct conciliation in the matter or seek the assistance of any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services by making a reference to such an institution or centre, for conducting conciliation and the provisions of Sections 65 to 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to such a dispute as if the conciliation was initiated under Part III of that Act. (3) Where the conciliation initiated under Sub-Section (2) is not successful and stands terminated without any settlement between the parties, the Council shall either itself take up the dispute for arbitration or refer to it any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services for such arbitration and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall then apply to the dispute as if the arbitration was in pursuance of an arbitration agreement referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 7 of that Act. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council or the centre providing alternate dispute resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as an Arbitrator or Conciliator under this section in a dispute between the supplier located within its jurisdiction and a buyer located anywhere in India. (5) Every reference made under this Section shall be decided within a period of ninety days from the date of making such a reference." 24.1. Thus, any party to a dispute may make a reference to the Council for recovery of an amount due. On such reference, the Council may either conduct conciliation itself or seek the assistance of any other institution and in this connection, Sections 65 to 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, would be attracted. Thus, any party to a dispute may make a reference to the Council for recovery of an amount due. On such reference, the Council may either conduct conciliation itself or seek the assistance of any other institution and in this connection, Sections 65 to 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, would be attracted. If the conciliation is not successful and no settlement is reached, the Council shall either itself take up the dispute for arbitration or refer it to any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services for such arbitration and provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, shall then apply to the dispute as if arbitration was in pursuance of an arbitration agreement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Moreover, keeping in mind the spirit of the Development Act, the reference is required to be decided within a period of 90 (ninety) days from the date of making of reference. 25. Under Section 19, if any party wants to challenge any award or decree made by the Council or by any institution or centre to which the reference was forwarded by the Council, the same shall not be entertained by any Court unless the appellant (not being the supplier) has deposited 75 % of the awarded or decretal amount. 26. While Section 20 provides for establishment of the Council, Section 21 deals with composition of the Council. 27. A careful perusal of the scheme of the Development Act, relevant provisions of which have been discussed above, would indicate that emphasis of this Act is to promote and protect the interest of micro, small and medium enterprises. The Development Act mandates promoting of procurement preference policy by the Central Government as well as by the State Government for procurement of goods and services from the micro and small enterprises by Government departments, institutions, undertakings etc. on preferential basis. Not only that, following such procurement payment has to be made within 45 days, failing which the supplier would be entitled to not only the principal amount, but also compound interest at 3 (three) times the bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank. To ensure that payments to micro, small and medium enterprises are not held up in long drawn litigation process and to ensure expeditious dispute resolution, the Development Act itself provides for alternative dispute resolution mechanism in the form of Section 18. To ensure that payments to micro, small and medium enterprises are not held up in long drawn litigation process and to ensure expeditious dispute resolution, the Development Act itself provides for alternative dispute resolution mechanism in the form of Section 18. Upon reference made to it by a party to a dispute, the Council is first required to conduct conciliation and if conciliation ends in failure, the dispute shall be taken up for arbitration by the Council itself or may be referred to any other institution or centre providing such services. In either case, relevant provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would be attracted and would come into play. 28. In so far challenge to awards passed by the Council is concerned, unless deposit of 75% is made by the challenger (not being the supplier) the challenge is not to be entertained by any Court. 29. This then is the sum and substance of the Development Act, whose focus is to protect and promote the interest of micro, small and medium enterprises. 30. Reverting back to the impugned award, it is seen that the same was duly contested by the petitioner, where after, the following order was passed on 31.03.2011:- "ASIDC Ltd. will pay M/s. Shiva Trade and Agency, Guwahati an amount of Rs. 14,08,187/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Eight Thousand One Hundred Eighty Seven) only along with interest thereon calculated as per Section 16 of the Act of 2006 from 45 days from the day of acceptance or the day of deemed acceptance. Further, interest against bills amounting to Rs. 6,60,764/- (Rupees Six Lakh Sixty Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Four) only which were not cleared in terms of section 15 of the Act of 2006 are also to be paid. As intimated by the unit vide letter No. JDP/2010-11 dt. 15.02.2011, a grace (interest free) period of 3 (three) months will be allowed for processing the claim for payment. ASIDC Ltd. in turn can make a claim of the principal buyer viz. Directorate of Health Services. Assam, on the force of this Award. The unit is directed to submit to the Corporation, the amount due to it including interest as per section 16 of the Act of 2006 supported by an affidavit." 30.1. While directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 14,08,187.00 to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with interest amounting to Rs. Assam, on the force of this Award. The unit is directed to submit to the Corporation, the amount due to it including interest as per section 16 of the Act of 2006 supported by an affidavit." 30.1. While directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 14,08,187.00 to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with interest amounting to Rs. 6,60,764.00, petitioner was given liberty to raise a claim before the principal buyer, i.e., the Directorate of Health Services, Assam on the strength of the award. 31. In Assam Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited (supra), same contention as is being advanced now was raised, i.e., petitioner was an agent and not a buyer of goods, who was the Director of Health Services. Therefore, no liability could have been fastened upon the petitioner to pay the awarded amount. Reference was also made to the agreement to contend that payment by the petitioner would be subject to receipt of funds from the intending departments. In that case, Supreme Court held that since respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not have any privity of contract with different departments of the Government, they were not necessary parties. It was also held that the expressions "principal" and "agent" used in a document are not decisive. Nature of transaction is required to be determined on the basis of the substance there and not by the nomenclature used. Referring to the Purchase Act, Supreme Court held that the principal purpose of the Act was to give encouragement to the growth of industries in the State of Assam and patronizing the products of small scale and cottage industries on preferential basis. The Purchase Act contemplates acts which would be for the betterment of the small scale industrial units, i.e., SSI units and not acts which would be detrimental to their interest. The terms used in the agreement must, therefore, be understood in that perspective. Finally, it was held that the Corporation, i.e., the petitioner, for all intent and purport having undertaken the liability of the purchasing authorities would also be liable for all consequences arising from non-payment of the price of the goods supplied. 32. Applying the above rationale, what is discernible is that indent was placed by the Director of Health Services, Assam, before the petitioner for supply of medicines. Petitioner in turn had procured medicines from respondent Nos. 32. Applying the above rationale, what is discernible is that indent was placed by the Director of Health Services, Assam, before the petitioner for supply of medicines. Petitioner in turn had procured medicines from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by entering into an agreement, where after, it had supplied the medicines procured from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to the Director of Health Services, Assam. Between the Director of Health Services and petitioner, the relationship is certainly between a "buyer" and a "supplier" and it is acknowledged by Section 2(n) of the Development Act, but the matter does not rest here. Petitioner in turn, had procured the medicines from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by entering into an agreement. However, there was no privity of contract between respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the one hand and the Director of Health Services on the other hand. 33. In the light of the Supreme Court decision in Assam Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited (supra), the agreement between the petitioner on the one hand and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the other hand, is one between a "buyer" and a "supplier". In the context of the relationship with respondent Nos. 2 and 3, petitioner steps into the shoes of the buyer. This becomes more clear when it is found that there is no agreement of purchase or sale between the Director of Health Services and respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Therefore, in the context of the agreement between petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the role of the petitioner would that be of a buyer, though it would be transient in nature. The moment the payment is made, this relationship gives way to the relationship between petitioner and Director of Health Services, when the petitioner would become the supplier vis-à-vis. the Director, who becomes the buyer, but that would not have any significant impact on the relationship between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vis-à-vis. claim of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned. This position is buttressed by the Supreme Court decision in the aforesaid case where the Supreme Court held that the petitioner having undertaken the liability of the purchasing authorities would also be liable for all consequences arising from non-payment of the price of the goods supplied. 34. 2 and 3 vis-à-vis. claim of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned. This position is buttressed by the Supreme Court decision in the aforesaid case where the Supreme Court held that the petitioner having undertaken the liability of the purchasing authorities would also be liable for all consequences arising from non-payment of the price of the goods supplied. 34. Therefore, the award passed by the Council directing the petitioner to pay the principal as well as the interest to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, but at the same time, giving liberty to the petitioner to raise the claim before the Director of Health Services on the basis of the award cannot be faulted. 35. On thorough consideration of the matter, Court finds no error or infirmity in the impugned award and having regard to the fact that provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would be attracted, no fault can be found with the execution proceedings as well. As per Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an arbitral award shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court. 36. Since the writ petition is being answered on merit, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether deposit of 75% of the awarded amount would be a pre-condition for entertaining a writ petition assailing an award passed under Section 18 of the Development Act. 37. Be that as it may, having regard to the discussions made above, Court finds no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Having regard to the overriding object of the Development Act and the fact that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have suffered non-execution of the award, cost of Rs. 20,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Thousand) is imposed on the petitioner.