Allowed

P.S.Textiles v. the Chairperson

Madras HC13 Aug 2025WP/28299/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A small enterprise sought correction of an MSME Facilitation Council award that recited the buyer's Mumbai residential address instead of the Bangalore address where summons were served. The court directed respondents 1 and 2 to amend the order dated 11.11.2022 within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 1 and 2 directed to amend the MSME order dated 11.11.2022 by rectifying the third respondent's address as per summons dated 26.10.2022, within four weeks; no costs.

P.S.Textiles Vs the Chairperson — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP No. 28299 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-08-2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA

¶5

WP No. 28299 of 2025

¶6

P.S.Textiles Rep. By Proprietor, S Balasubramanian, No.60/277 Bharathi Nagar, Ammapalayam, Anupparpalayam (Post), Thirupur - 641 652.

¶7

Petitioner(s)

¶8

¶9

The Chairperson Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC), Office Of The Industries Commissioner And Director Of Industries And Commerce, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

¶10

2.The Secretary Regional Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitaiton Council, District Industries Centre, Coimbatore.

¶11

3.M/s. SAANVI INDUSTRIES (SAANVI CLOTHING PVT LTD), Rep By it Proprietor Mr. Jinal Dhiren Rathore, Plot No. 450 Veerabhadrapalaya, Vasundhara Layout Near Kcop Circle, Doddaballapur, Neelamangala Road, Doddaballapura, Bangalore 561203.

¶12

Respondent(s)

¶13

1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

WP No. 28299 of 2025

¶15

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to amend the MSME order No. MSEFC/CBER/212/2021, dated 11.11.2022, by substituting the 3rd respondent's correct address in Bangalore, in place of the

¶16

residential address in Mumbai, based on Petitioner's representation dated 27.05.2025, within a stipulated time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶17

For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Anandhamoorthy

¶18

For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Manoharan, AGP for R1 and R2

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The above writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus,

¶21

directing the respondents 1 and 2 to amend the MSME order No. MSEFC/CBER/212/2021 dated 11.11.2022, by substituting the 3rd respondent's

¶22

correct address in Bangalore, in place of the residential address Mumbai, based on petitioner's representation dated 27.05.2025, within a stipulated time as

¶23

fixed by this Court.

¶24

The petitioner is a registered Small Enterprise under the MSMED Act,

¶25

The petitioner is engaged in manufacture and export of knitted garments.

¶26

2/7

¶27

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

¶28

WP No. 28299 of 2025

¶29

The petitioner states that it supplied textile fabrics to the 3rd respondent between

¶30

01.11.2017 and 22.10.2018 under 21 invoices, for a total value of Rs.60,57,800/-. The petitioner states that out of the said amount, Rs.18,90,000/remained unpaid despite the petitioner's repeated requests. As the 3rd respondent failed to pay the amount of Rs.18,90,000/- to the petitioner, the petitioner filed an application in Application No. TN28A0071519/M/00091, before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (1st and 2nd respondents herein) under Section 18(1) of the MSMED Act. The petitioner states that the Council after hearing, passed a final order on 11.11.2022, directing the 3rd respondent to pay

¶31

the principal amount of Rs.18,90,000/- along with compound interest as per Sections 15 and 16 of the Act. The petitioner states that, when he received the final order, he was shocked to note that in the final order, the 3rd respondent's residential address in Mumbai was mentioned instead of his business address in Bangalore, to which address the summons and notices were served. The petitioner therefore submitted repeated representations to the 1st respondent requesting him to correct the errors. The petitioner states that due to incorrect address, the petitioner was prevented from initiating execution proceedings, in

¶32

3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

WP No. 28299 of 2025

¶34

Bangalore, rendering the award ineffective. The petitioner therefore left with no

¶35

other remedy filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

¶36

I heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials placed on

¶37

record. By consent of both counsels, the writ petition is disposed of at the

¶38

admission stage.

¶39

It is seen from the summons, issued by the 1st respondent in the section 18[1] proceedings that the business address of the 3rd respondent in Bangalore

¶40

was mentioned and the summons served to the aforesaid address was received

¶41

by the 3rd respondent. Pursuant to the receipt of the summons, the 3rd

¶42

respondent appeared in the Council meeting held on 21.09.2022, however, the

¶43

3rd respondent neither filed counter nor appeared for the subsequent hearings, as is evident from the order dated 11.11.2022 of the 1st respondent. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the 3rd respondent pursuant to the summons issued to his Bombay address, appeared for hearing on 21.09.2022. Therefore, the petitioner is justified in submitting that the residential address mentioned in the

¶44

4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

WP No. 28299 of 2025

¶46

final order needs to be changed to the business address in Bangalore, as it will

¶47

facilitate the petitioner to effectively initiate execution proceedings.

¶48

Under the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the fact that

¶49

the petitioner cannot file the execution proceedings in Bangalore, based on the

¶50

address of the 3rd respondent given in the final award, I am inclined to issue direction to the respondents 1 and 2, to amend the MSME order dated 11.11.2022, by rectifying the 3rd respondent's address, as stated in the summons

¶51

dated 26.10.2022, within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a

¶52

copy of this order.

¶53

Writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as

to costs.

dsn

13-08-2025

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶58

5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

WP No. 28299 of 2025

¶60

¶61

1.The Chairperson Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council , Office Of The Industries Commissioner And Director Of Industries And Commerce, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

¶62

2.The Secretary Regional Micro Small Enterprises Facilitaiton Council, District Industries, Centre, Coimbatore

¶63

6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 28299 of 2025

N.MALA J.

dsn

WP No. 28299 of 2025

¶68

13-08-2025

¶69

7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.S.Textiles v. the Chairperson

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.S.Textiles v. the Chairperson

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

Pichaiyammal Vs the Assistant Director

Boss Infrastructure Vs Superintending Engineer

K.Selva Kumar Vs Mr. Senthilnathan and another

A.Deepa Vs the District Collector

R.Krishnamoorthy Vs the District Collector

D.Munusamy Vs the District Collector