AAKASH AGRO Vs. MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISE FACILITATION COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the legality and sustainability of order dtd. 29/11/2022 passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (for short 'MSE Facilitation Council").

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that petitioner is distributor of agricultural equipments/articles used in agricultural activities. In the business of distribution, petitioner purchased the goods from respondent No.2 (supplier) but failed to pay the amount towards the good purchased by it to the tune of Rs.6,36,450.00. Respondent No.2, thereafter, submitted reference application before respondent No.1, upon which, proceedings of conciliation was initiated. Notice was issued to the petitioner in which he did not appear. He was also served notice through e-mail and when petitioner failed to appear before MSE Facilitation Council even after issuance of the notices on different dates, paper publication was also ordered. The MSE Facilitation Council thereafter proceeded ex-parte and passed the order (Annexure P-1). Aggrieved by the order passed by the MSE Facilitation Council, this writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the date of entering into the contract, respondent No.2 was not registered as Micro, Small or Medium Enterprise under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'MSME Act') and therefore, MSE Facilitation Council constituted under the Act of 2006 was not having jurisdiction to entertain application/reference submitted by respondent No.2. Order passed by the MSE Facilitation Council is therefore without jurisdiction. It is also contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of submission of Reference and issuance of notice, he suffered from serious medical ailment and therefore, he could not able to participate in the proceedings before the MSE Facilitation Council. Reference application is submitted on false ground with inordinate delay of about 4 years and therefore the Reference Application ought not to have been ordered on merits as the application was barred by limitation. Petitioner has also changed address and therefore notice was not served. He submits that date of submission of Udyog Aadhaar Memorandum is 7/5/2016 and was valid up to 30/6/2022. As on the date of entering into the contract, respondent No.2 was not having registration certificate as Micro, Medium or Small Enterprise, MSE Facilitation Council was not having jurisdiction to entertain application. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Silpi Industries etc. Vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. (2021 SCC OnLine SC 439).