Writ petition challenging the MSME Facilitation Council's refusal to decide a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction and maintainability separate from the merits. Court dismissed the petition, holding that such objections must be raised and decided along with the claim.
null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3168 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 19622 OF 2025
Between:
IV'l/s S_ubhash lnfraengineers Private Limited, A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 ClN. U452000DL2009PTC195225, Having its Registered office at SCO-4, CSC, PocketC, First floor, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. Having its Head Office at Plot No. B-1, lnfocity, Sector-34, Near Hero Honda Chowk, Gurugram District, Haryana State. Rep by its Authorised Representative, [\4r. Parmod Kumar Yadav, S/o. Balwant Sirigh, Aged years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o. K-60A, Kalkaji, Aali, South Delhi,Delhi:1 10019.
...PETITIONER
AND
.,.RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in favour of the Petitioner quashing and setting aside the proceedings on the file of Respondent No.1 vide Reference No. 229llFC/ It/dl-A/lg/ 2024 dt.O4-11-2O24 - initiated by the Respondent No.1 on a reference application filed by the Respondent no.3 under Section 17 and 18 of the MSME Act - as wholly without jurisdiction, ab initio void, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the statutory provisions of IVSIVED
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in thecircumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, theHigh Court may be pleasedto stay all furtherproceedings vide Reference No. 229llFC/lt/ dll,ltlgl2024 dl.O4-11-2024 before the Respondent Nc.1
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SUDHAKAR REDDY CHALLA
Counsel for the Respondent nos.1&3:----
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR INDUSTRIESAND COMMERCE
The Court made the following: ORDER
I
,l
TTIE, HON'BLE SRI JUSTICEK. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.19622of 2025
ORDER:
Heard Sri SudhakarReddyChalla,learned counsel tbr petitioner and learned GovernmenfPleader for Industriesand Commerce appearingfor 2"d respondent.
l" respondent,petitioner filcdthc present Writ Petition.
1" responclent has nojurisdiction to adjudicate the application
flled by 3'.d respondent and thesame is not maintainable. \
2
KL..I W P No.19622 oi 2025
Referring to Sections 15 to 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for shorl 'MSME Act'),, leamed counsel for the petitioner would contend that 1't respondent has to consider the saicl provisions and decide the preliminary objection filed by the petitioner with regard to the jurisdiction of 1'' respondent Council. He would further contend that petitioner has issued Lerter of lntent in favour of 3'd respondent and the samc was tcnninated thereafter. Theretbre, 3'd respondent filed aloresaid apptication before 1't respondent with regard to the recovery of payment The same will not come within the purview of the provisiorrs of the MSME Act. Therefore, raising the said grounds, thc petitioner has filed aforesaid prelirninary objection befcrre l " respondent on 02.01.2025. However, l" respondent is not considering the same.
petitioner along with the claim filed by 3'd respondent.
/
; /..,,
3
KI-, J w P No.19622 o{ 2025
\
l't respondent would reveal that it has rendered services to the
petitioner herein. Therelbre, l" respondent cannot decide the jurisdictional issue as a prelimir.rary issue and the petitioner has to raise the said issue along with other issues and l',
4
IiL, J l] P.No.19622 ol2025
.:
'a'
respondent will decide the same along with the claim filed by
3'd respondent
7 . ln the light of thc aforesaid discussion, this Court is not inclined to enteftain the present Writ Petition.
decide the same. There shall be no order as to costs
Miscellaneous applications, if any pcnding, shall stand
closed.
SD/. M. OSMANALI BAIG ASSISTANTREGIPTRAR //TRUE COPY' secrrfN'btrrlcen
To,
3 Two CD CoPies KKS T
!
HIGH COURT
)
DATED:0910712025
10 SEP 206
ORDER
ii.t. ,. -' -i'
WP.No.19622 of 2025
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the MSME Facilitation Council has jurisdiction to decide the maintainability of a claim as a preliminary issue before adjudicating the merits?
5 provisions across 3 enactments
M/s Subhash Infraengineers Private Limited
Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council
State of Telangana Ministry of Industries and Commerce
M/s Saidax Engineers and Infrastructures Private Limited
K. Lakshman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
