Dismissed

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. the Kerala Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council

Kerala HC29 Mar 2021WP(C)/3752/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Corporation challenged maintainability of Facilitation Council reference due to pending civil suit. Court held Section 18's overriding clause permits proceedings despite civil suit, dismissing writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; application O.A. No.23 of 2009 directed to be disposed of expeditiously.

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1943

¶5

WP(C).No.3752 OF 2013(T)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE KERALA MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2 M/S.RAYMANDS RUBBERS PVT.LTD VALIYAVEETTIL VADAKKETHIL KAPPIL EAST, KRISHNAPURAM POST, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PIN - 690 533. R1 BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM SR. R1 BY ADV. SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEJITH

¶12

BY ADV SUBASH CYRIAC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

-:2:-

W.P.(C) No.3752/13

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29^th day of March, 2021

¶18

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') questioned the maintainability of an application preferred by the 2^nd respondent before the Kerala Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (for short 'the Facilitation Council'). The maintainability was decided in favour of the 2^nd respondent by Ext.P6 order, which is impugned in this writ petition.

¶19

The issue emanates from an application filed by the 2^nd respondent claiming an amount of Rs.30,05,799/- allegedly due from the Corporation on account of materials supplied. The petitioner contends that a civil suit had been filed by the Corporation claiming damages, as is evident from Ext.P2, before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram as OS. NO.1373 of 2009 and that due to the initiation of the said civil proceedings, application before the Facilitation Council was not maintainable. It is also contended that, though the objection regarding the applicability of the Act to the contract in question, was also raised by them in the rejoinder filed before the Facilitation Council, the same was omitted from consideration in the impugned order.

¶20

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2^nd respondent controverting the contentions raised in the writ petition. I am not adverting

¶21

-:3:-

¶22

W.P.(C) No.3752/13

¶23

to the various recitals in the counter affidavit as the same may not have a bearing due to the manner in which I am disposing of this writ petition.

¶24

I have heard Adv. Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Adv. Subash Cyriac, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶25

The Facilitation Council is created under Section 20 of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short 'the Act'). As per Section 18 of the Act, any party to a dispute can make a reference to the Facilitation Council with regard to any amount due. The said provision commences with the words “ notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force ”. The procedure to be followed on receipt of a reference under Section 18(1) is specified in the subsequent sub-clauses. The procedure provided for under the Act is to enable speedy settlement of disputes pursuant to the reference made to the Facilitation Council.

¶26

Be that as it may, in the impugned order the Facilitation Council has considered the main issue of maintainability as originally raised by the Corporation, which related to the existence of a civil suit as a bar to maintaining a petition before the Facilitation Council. It was submitted that after the impugned order was passed much water has flowed under the bridge on account of even the civil suit being dismissed for nonprosecution, by judgment dated 20.9.2014 of the Sub Court,

¶27

-:4:-

¶28

W.P.(C) No.3752/13

¶29

Thiruvananthapuram. Admittedly the civil suit was preferred after the 2^nd respondent filed the reference before the Facilitation Council. Filing of a civil suit, subsequent to a reference initiated under Section 18 of the Act, does not divest the authority of the Facilitation Council from proceeding with the reference in accordance with law. The words “ notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force ” in Section 18 is indicative of the legislative intent. In the said circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings rendered by the Facilitation Council on the maintainability of the reference due to the existence of the civil suit, as contended by the Corporation.

¶30

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised an objection regarding the limitation as well as lack of registration as an enterprise within the time as contemplated under the Act. He contends that the said objections though raised in Ext.P5, do not find consideration in Ext.P6, and hence Ext.P6 is liable to be interfered with.

¶31

On a reading of Ext.P6, I find that the Facilitation Council has proceeded to treat those objections as a matter that touches the merits of the claim raised therein and has dealt with the said issue, though, in one sentence as follows: “The matter would be heard further on the question of claim raised by the petitioner”.

¶32

I am of the opinion that the aforesaid sentence is sufficient consideration of the objection raised by the writ petitioner for the present,

¶33

-:5:-

¶34

W.P.(C) No.3752/13

¶35

since as can be understood from the order, the Facilitation Council felt it to be a matter which requires consideration on merits, at its final stage. No fault can be found with such a conclusion.

¶36

Since this is a matter pending before this Court from 2013 and before the Facilitation Council from 2009, I am of the view that expeditious steps ought to be taken to dispose of the application O.A. No.23 of 2009 filed by the 2^nd respondent.

¶37

With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

vps

W.P.(C) No.3752/13

-:6:-

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S' APPENDIX

¶45

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE 2ND
	RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
	2.7.2009

¶46

EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE FILED BY THE 2ND THIRUVANANTHAPURA	PLAINT IN OS NO.1373 OF 2009 RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUB COURT, M
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE 6.5.2010	PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT BEFORE 15.6.2010	OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE COUNTER	REJOINDER SUBMITTED BY THE THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO EXT.P4
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 26.11.2012.	ORDER IN O.A. NO.23 OF 2009

¶47

RESPONDENT'S/S' EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXT.R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.8.2007 OF MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES

¶49

EXT.R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE,ALLEPPEY

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. the Kerala Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. the Kerala Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council

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

Veeran Kutty K Vs Sundaram Home Finance Ltd.

Sikal.S.K. Vs the Authorised Officer

Dr. Prabhakaran Nair V.R Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

M.T.Phalgunan Vs the District Collector

K.K.Kunhi Vs the Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Satheesan M.P. Vs State of Kerala & Others