Allowed

Bagalkot Cement & Industries v. Chairman Micro Small and

Madras HC11 Jul 2022WP/16890/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the impugned order passed by the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, which directed the petitioner to pay dues, was set aside. The court found a violation of natural justice due to non-service of notice and failure to follow the mandatory step-by-step procedure of conciliation and arbitration under Section 18 of the MSMED Act. The matter was remanded to the first res

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside, the Writ Petition was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council to decide the dispute afresh after following

Bagalkot Cement & Industries Vs Chairman Micro Small and — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.16890 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.07.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P.No.16890 of 2016 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.14475 of 2016

¶8

Bagalkot Cement & Industries Ltd., Having its registered office at, Stadium House, Block No.1, 6^th Floor, Veer Nariman Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020. ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Chairman, Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, Additional Chief Secretary/Industries Commissioner & Director of Industries & Commerce,

¶11

Chennai – 600 032.

¶12

P.Ponram ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in Case No.M&SEFC/CBER/36/2016 and quash the impugned

¶14

1/6

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.No.16890 of 2016

¶17

decision/order in the proceedings dated 01.03.2016.

¶18

For Petitioner : Ms.J.N.Preethi

¶19

for M/s. King Partridge For R1 : Ms.M.Jayanthi Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.B.Manoharan

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition challenging the

¶22

order passed by the first respondent/ Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council dated 01.03.2006, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.24,89,419/- along with compounded interest as stipulated in the MSMED Act.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

¶24

was not served with any notice regarding the proceedings filed before the Council/R1 under Section 18 of the MSMED Act. According to the petitioner, as per the impugned order, the notice sent to the petitioner was returned with an endorsement “the party has left”. Since the impugned order was passed in violation of natural justice principles, the same is deserved to be set aside.

¶25

2/6

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.No.16890 of 2016

¶28

3.Learned Counsel for the second respondent submitted that he was

¶29

made to suffer for nearly six years and it will have an adverse impact on his financial position and requested the Court for referring the matter for mediation.

¶30

The reading of the impugned order make it clear that on receipt of reference from the second respondent, the first respondent issued notice to the petitioner and the same was returned with an endorsement “the party has left”. Therefore, it is clear that the proceedings before the first respondent was conducted without serving notice to the petitioner which is a clear violation of natural justice. Further, the reading of impugned order make it clear that the first respondent has not followed the step by step procedure contemplated under Section 18 of the MSMED Act. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order of this Court dated 24.06.2022 made in W.P.No.25759 of 2013, wherein the step by step procedure to be followed under Sections 18(1), 18(2) and 18(3) of MSMED Act has been explained.

¶31

3/6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.No.16890 of 2016

¶34

It is settled now that the first respondent after service of notice to all the parties and on receipt of their response, shall relegate the parties for conciliation and in case conciliation fails, the matter shall be referred to arbitration. The said procedure contemplated under Section 18 of the MSMED Act has not been followed by the first respondent, therefore, the impugned order passed by the first respondent cannot be treated as an award passed under Section 18 of the MSMED Act.

¶35

Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the file of the first respondent and the first respondent is directed to follow the step by step procedure contemplated under Section 18 of the MSMED Act and decide the matter afresh as expeditiously as possible, within the period as mandated by MSMED Act. The first respondent is directed to take up the matter for consideration on 01.08.2022. Both the petitioner and the second respondent are directed to appear before the first respondent on 01.08.2022 at 10.30 am.

¶36

4/6

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.No.16890 of 2016

¶39

In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the

¶40

Writ Petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶41

11.07.2022

¶42

Note: Issue order copy on 15.07.2022 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ham

¶43

¶44

The Chairman, Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, Additional Chief Secretary/Industries Commissioner & Director of Industries & Commerce,

¶45

Chennai – 600 032.

¶46

The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

¶47

5/6

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.16890 of 2016

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

ham

W.P.No.16890 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.14475 of 2016

¶53

11.07.2022

¶54

6/6

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Bagalkot Cement & Industries v. Chairman Micro Small and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bagalkot Cement & Industries v. Chairman Micro Small and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Ramakrishnan Vs The Deputy Registrar of

A.Parthiban, Vs the Deputy Registrar of

Meera Vs Regional Transport Officer

K.Ramesh, Vs the State Transport Appellate

M.Gopal, Vs the Principal District Judge

M/s.Leather Leader Company (P) Vs The Chairman