Dismissed

V.A. Jose v. Rajesh G. Thayyil

Kerala HC21 Aug 2015WP(C)/13492/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (KMSEFC) finding an application maintainable. The petitioner argued the respondent firm could not benefit as it had not filed a memorandum within 180 days of the Act. The court held the 180-day mandate applies only to specific industries and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the Ext.P4 order is dismissed. The second respondent is free to proceed with adjudication on Ext.P1.

V.A. Jose Vs Rajesh G. Thayyil — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2015/30TH SRAVANA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 13492 of 2014 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

V.A. JOSE

¶8

PROPRIETOR, M/S.T & J MARKETING COMBINES, KOKKALAI THRISSUR-680 021.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.PAUL KURIAKOSE

¶10

SRI.K.A.ANISH

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

RAJESH G. THAYYIL

¶13

PROPRIETOR, M/S.THAYYIL INDUSTRIES, PLOT NO.27 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT, KALAMASSERY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 109.

¶14

THE MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL KERALA, DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND

¶16

R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.JAYAKUMAR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-082015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 13492 of 2014 (J)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1. PHOTOSTACT COPY OF 1ST RESPONDENT APPLICATION DATED 31/3/2012 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P2. PHOTOSTACT COPY OF OBJECTIONS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 27/1/2013.

¶22

EXT.P3. PHOTOSTACT COPY OF PETITION DATED 5/4/2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING TO HEAR THE QUESTION OF MAINTAINABILITY OF EXT.P1 ORIGINAL APPLICATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P4. PHOTOSTACT COPY OF ORDER DATED 25/4/2014 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A.TO JUDGE

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶28

W.P.(C).No.13492 of 2014

¶29

Dated this the 21^st day of August, 2015

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 order of the Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Kerala by which the application preferred by the first respondent under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”) was found to be maintainable. It was the case of the petitioner that he had been appointed as the distributor of the first respondent firm but all accounts between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent had been settled and that no amounts are due from the petitioner to the first respondent. Further, it is contended that the first respondent's undertaking is not one which comes within the meaning of the term enterprise as defined in the Act . However, the 1^st respondent had approached the second respondent under Section 17 of the Act and the second respondent had held that the application preferred by the first respondent is maintainable

¶32

¶33

W.P.(C).No.13492 of 2014

¶34

by Ext.P4 order.

¶35

The petitioner challenges the said order on the ground that the finding of the 2^nd respondent is erroneous as all existing Micro and Small enterprises have to file a memorandum of enterprise as provided in the Act within 180 days from the commencement of the Act in order to be entitled to any benefit under the Act. An interim order dated 13.8.2014 was issued by this court staying all proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4.

¶36

The first respondent has thereafter entered appearance and filed a detailed counter affidavit pointing out that his firm was registered as Small Scale Industrial Unit as early as in 1973 and had, after commencement of the Act, been classified as Micro Industry and has secured registration as such after filing its memorandum of enterprise by Ext.R1(c) dated 17.1.2008. It is the case of the first respondent that the provisions of 2006 Act apply to it rendering it eligible to pursue the remedies available under the Act. It is seen that Ext.P1 application of the first respondent was preferred as early as on 31.3.2012. The petitioner had raised objections in January 2013 before the

¶37

W.P.(C).No.13492 of 2014

¶38

¶39

second respondent and sought the consideration of the question

¶40

of maintainability under section 8 as a preliminary issue on 5.4.2013. It was thereafter that Ext.P4 order was issued by the second respondent specifically finding that the proceedings are maintainable before it in terms of the Act.

¶41

It is seen that Ext.P1 has been preferred by the 1^st respondent seeking initiation of action under the Act. The 1^st respondent has preferred Ext.P1 application as early as on 31.03.2012. Objections have been preferred by the respondent which have been considered and Ext.P4 order issued.

¶42

Section 8 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises

¶43

Development Act, 2006 reads as follows:-

¶44

“ 8. Memorandum of micro, small and medium enterprises. - (1) Any person who intends to establish,-

¶45

a) A micro or small enterprise, may, at his discretion; or

¶46

b) A medium enterprise engaged in providing or rendering of services may, at his discretion; or

¶47

c) a medium enterprise engaged in the manufacture or production of goods pertaining to any industry specified in the First Schedule to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, shall file the memorandum of micro, small or, as the case may be, of medium enterprise with such authority as may be specified by the State Government under sub-section(4) or the Central Government under subsection (3):

¶48

Provided that by person who, before the commencement of this Act, established-

¶49

W.P.(C).No.13492 of 2014

¶50

¶51

(a) A small scale industry and obtained a registration certificate, may, at his discretion; and

¶52

b) an industry engaged in the manufacture or production of goods pertaining to any industry specified in the First Schedule to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, having investment in plant and machinery or more than one crore rupees but not exceeding ten crore rupees and, in pursuance of the notification of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Industry (Department of Industrial Development) number S.O.477(E), dated the 25^th July, 1991 file an Industrial Entrepreneurs' Memorandum, shall within one hundred and eighty days from the commencement of this Act, file the memorandum, in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

¶53

(2) The form of the memorandum, the procedure of its filing and other matters incidental thereto shall be such as may be notified by the Central Government after obtaining the recommendations of the Advisory Committee in this behalf.

¶54

The authority with which the memorandum shall be filed by a medium enterprise shall be such as may be specified, by notification, by the Central Government.

¶55

The State Government shall, by notification, specify the authority with which a micro or small enterprise may file the memorandum.

¶56

The authorities specified under sub-sections (3) and (4) shall follow, for the purposes of this section, the procedure notified by the Central Government under sub-section (2).”

¶57

The 2^nd respondent has, by Ext.P4 order held that a

¶58

small scale industry which was established before the commencement of the 2006 Act and obtained the registration certificate may, at its discretion, within 180 days from the commencement of this Act file the memorandum in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is held that the mandatory requirement of filing the Memorandum of

¶59

W.P.(C).No.13492 of 2014

¶60

¶61

Enterprise within 180 days would apply only in the case of industries specified in sub-clause (b). It has been held by the 2^nd respondent that the 1^st respondent concern is not an industry coming within sub-clause (b) of the proviso to section 8(1) of the Act. It is the definite case of the 1^st respondent that it had filed Entrepreneurs' Memorandum as provided in the Act which had been duly registered before Ext.P1 was preferred before the 2^nd respondent.

¶62

In such circumstances, the finding in Ext.P4 to the effect that the filing, within 180 days of the Entrepreneurs' Memorandum is not mandatory in the case of existing industries cannot be faulted. Challenge to Ext.P4 fails and the writ petition is dismissed. The 2^nd respondent is therefore free to proceed with the adjudication on Ext.P1, in accordance with law.

¶63

Anu Sivaraman, Judge

¶64

al/sj

V.A. Jose v. Rajesh G. Thayyil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.A. Jose v. Rajesh G. Thayyil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annamkutty George Vs Corporation of Kochi

P. Ali Vs the Areacode Grama Panchayath

Rajesh Babu Vs State of Kerala

K.M.Balan Vs the District Collector

Siraj T.I. Vs State of Kerala

Arifa Beevi Vs Nagaroor Grama Panchayat