Proceeding Sheet vs Wardha
2022 Latest Caselaw 724 AP

          HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE NO.: W.P.Nos.27670, 27673, 27691, 27693, 27829,
28010, 28034 of 2021
                            PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.      Date                                ORDER                               OFFICE
No.                                                                              NOTE


6.    09.02.2022   AVSS,J
                          Sri       V.Subrahmanyam,                  learned
                   counsel for the petitioner, submits that the
                   very   action        of   the    3rd    respondent       in

entertaining the claim of the 4th respondent suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction, as there is no relationship of buyer and supplier between the petitioner and the 4th respondent herein. It is further submitted that since the claims arising out of the contract were already settled by the Arbitral Tribunal, the 4th respondent herein cannot approach the Facilitation Council.

In support of his submissions and contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner takes the support of the judgment of the Bombay High Court, in the case of M/s. P.L. Adke, a Sole Proprietorship Concern vs. Wardha Municipal Corporation in Arbitration Appeal (ST) No.30508/2019 and the judgments of the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts.

While referring to the said judgments, it is contended by the learned counsel that in the absence of any relationship between the petitioner and the 4th respondent in the capacity of buyer and supplier, invocation of the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 is impermissible.

It is also brought to the notice of this Court that SLP(C) No.4970/2021 filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the aggrieved party in the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. P.L. Adke, a Sole Proprietorship Concern vs. Wardha Municipal Corporation, is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Sri Rama Chandra Rao Gurram, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the present Writ Petitions are liable to be rejected in view of effective and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Scale Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel that in view of the said alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner and in view of the express provisions of Section 5 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the present Writ Petitions cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a short accommodation to get ready for the hearing.

Post on 16.02.2022.

Interim orders granted earlier are extended by four (04) weeks.

Registry is directed to post the W.P.No.27826 of 2021 along with this batch.

________ AVSS,J SCS