Dismissed

Superintending Engineer (Mm) v. M/S Western Transformers and Equipment Pvt. Ltd.

Rajasthan HC5 Jan 2024CMA/3089/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this composite civil miscellaneous appeal, the Division Bench dismissed the challenge lodged by the appellant against an order remanding the matter back to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council on account of procedural lapses. The bench held that the Council is the exclusive authority for adjudication under the Special Act and the remand causes no prejudice.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were dismissed. The stay application and pending interim application were disposed off.

Superintending Engineer (Mm) Vs M/S Western Transformers and… — Arbitration | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:745-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3089/2022

¶4

Superintending Engineer (Mm), Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited Old Power House, Near Ram Mandir, Banipark, Jaipur, Raj. Through Office In-Charge Executive Engineer (Spo-V) Office A Superintending Engineer (Padarth Parbandhan) Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Old Power House, Near Ram Mandir, Bani Park, Jaipur. At Present Officer In Charge Executive Engineer (Spo-V) Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd, Jaipur.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Western Transformers And Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Through Proprietor, Industrial Area, Mathura Road, Bharatpur 321001.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3086/2022

----Appellant

Versus

M/s Western Transformers And Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Through Proprietor, Industrial Area, Mathura Road, Bharatpur-321001.

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3087/2022

----Appellant

[2024:RJ-JP:745-DB]

[CMA-3089/2022]

(2 of 5)

Versus

M/s Western Transformers And Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Through Proprietor, Industrial Area, Mathura Road, Bharatpur-321001.

¶24

----Respondent

¶25

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Bipin Gupta, Adv. &
	Mr. Naman Pareek, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sandeep Taneja, Adv. &
	Mr. Kartikeya Sharma, Adv.

¶26

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶27

Judgment

¶28

05/01/2024

¶29

Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the Commercial Court to the extent that it has remanded the matter back to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (hereinafter referred to as “Facilitation Council”).

¶30

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that as per Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Act 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2006”), a reference can be made to Facilitation Council by any party. Sub-Clause 4 and 5 of Section 18 of Act of 2006 reads as under:-

¶31

“(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council or the centre providing alternate dispute resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as an Arbitrator or Conciliator under this section in a dispute between the supplier located within its jurisdiction and a buyer located anywhere in India.

¶32

(5) Every reference made under this section shall be decided within a period of ninety days from the date of making such a reference.”

[2024:RJ-JP:745-DB]

[CMA-3089/2022]

(3 of 5)

It is also contended that the learned Commercial Court after having set aside the award has erred in remanding the matter back to the Facilitation Council for the very reason that there is no provision under the Act of 2006 or the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940 with regard to remand the matter back to the Facilitation Council.

¶37

It is argued that in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940, there were provisions for remand but in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, there is limited power of remand under Section 34(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Project Director, National Highway Versus M. Hakeem and Anr. (2021) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1 . 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that the object of the Act is to provide for facilitating the promotion and development and enhancing the competitiveness of micro, small and medium enterprises and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. It is contended that the Facilitation Council is the only authority which is empowered to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. It is also contended that the Commercial Court had set aside the award as it was not passed in accordance with the procedure provided under Section 18 of Act of 2006 and there were procedural lapses. It is further contended that since the only authority which can adjudicate the dispute is the Facilitation Council, referring the matter to the same cannot be said to be illegal.

¶39

Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Silpi Industries and Ors. Versus Kerala State Road

¶40

(4 of 5) [CMA-3089/2022]

¶41

[2024:RJ-JP:745-DB]

¶42

Transport Corporation and Ors. [AIR 2021 SC 5487], Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Versus The State of Rajasthan and Ors. [2021 9 SCR 497], Narmada Transmission Private Limited Versus Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited [AIR 2023 Raj. 36], Ajmer Vidyut Nigam Limited Versus M/s Anamika Conductors Limited [D.B. Special Appeal No.351/2021 connected with Appeal No.352/2021 decided on 14.12.2022] and M/s Narmada Transmission Private Limited Versus Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Ors. [SLP No.10468/2023 decided on 16.05.2023].

¶43

We have considered the contentions. 9. Admittedly, the Act of 2006 is a comprehensive and special legislation. The only authority which is empowered to decide the dispute is the Facilitation Council. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the award has been set aside only on account of procedural lapses, which fact is not disputed by counsel for the parties.

¶44

Division Bench of this Court in Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (Supra) and Narmada Transmission Private Limited (Supra) had after quashing and setting aside the award, remanded the matter back to the Facilitation Council for a fresh consideration. The order passed in Narmada Transmission Private Limited (Supra) was challenged before the Apex Court and the Apex Court has dismissed the SLP.

¶45