Delhi High Court
M/S Technovations vs Micro And Small Industries ... on 20 February, 2017
$~76
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 20.02.2017
+ W.P.(C) 1476/2017
M/S TECHNOVATIONS ..... Petitioner
versus
MICRO AND SMALL INDUSTRIES FACILITATIONS
COUNCIL & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner :Ms. Tanya Dayal, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjoy Ghjose and Mr. Rhishabh Jetley, Advocates
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner by the present petition seeks a direction to the
respondent no. 1 i.e. Micro and Small Industries Facilitations Council,
New Delhi to expeditiously process the reference of the petitioner
dated 09.09.2014 under Section 18 (4) of the Micro Small and
Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.
2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 on advance
notice submits that in terms of Section 18(4) of the Act, the Micro and
Small Industries Facilitations Council or the Centre providing
alternate disputes resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as
an Arbitrator or Conciliator for any dispute between the supplier
located within its jurisdiction and the buyer located anywhere in India.
3. It is submitted that since the petitioner is a supplier and is
registered in the State of Chhattisgarh, the concerned Council or
Centre having jurisdiction in the State of Chhattisgarh would have the
territorial jurisdiction to act as an Arbitrator or Conciliator in terms of
Section 18(4) of the Act. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1
submits that the petitioner should have approached the concerned
Council/Centre having territorial jurisdiction in the area where the
petitioner is registered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the
present petition with liberty to move an appropriate reference before
the concerned Council/Centre having territorial jurisdiction in the
State of Chhattisgarh.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised an apprehension
that since the dispute pertains to the year 2014 and the reference was
made to respondent no. 1 on 09.09.2014. The concerned
Council/Centre having territorial jurisdiction in the State of
Chhattisgarh may refuse to entertain the same.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents very candidly admits that
post the filing of the reference on 09.09.2014 no intimation has been
sent to the petitioner indicating that respondent No. 1 at New Delhi
does not have the territorial jurisdiction or that and the petitioner
should approach the Council/Centre having territorial jurisdiction in
the State of Chhattisgarh.
7. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn
with liberty to the petitioner to file a reference with the
Council/Centre having territorial jurisdiction in the State of
Chhattisgarh within a period of four weeks.
8. It is clarified that since the respondent no. 1, till date has not
intimated the petitioner about the objection of lack of territorial
jurisdiction, benefit of the period between filing of the reference on
09.09.2014 and passing of this order shall be given to the petitioner
and the said period shall be excluded while computing the period of
limitation, if any.
9. It is further clarified that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner.
10. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
FEBRUARY 20, 2017
'rs'
