Gauhati High Court
And Is Rep. By Dr. Kajal Saikia vs The Union Of India And Ors on 1 October, 2024
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010189512024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5109/2024
NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED IN INDIA AND
HAVING ITS REGD, OFFICE AT 122A, G.S.ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI,
GUWAHATI- 781005, ASSAM.
AND IS REP. BY DR. KAJAL SAIKIA,
S/O- LATE MADHI SAIKIA, AGED ABOUT 55 YRS,
WORKING AS THE GEN. MANAGER (HR AND LEGAL) OF THE PET.
COMPANY HAVING ITS REGD, OFFICE AT 122A, G.S.ROAD CHRISTIAN
BASTI, GUWAHATI- 781005, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF MICRO SMALL AND MEDIUM
ENTERPRISES, UDYOG BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN-110011
2:THE MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL
MSEF
COUNCIL DISTRICT (SOUTH EAST)
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
O/O THE CHAIRMAN MICRO AND SMALLENTERPRISES FACILITATION
COUNCIL (SOUTH EAST) GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF
DELHI
OLD GARGI COLLEGE BUILDING
LAJPAT NAGAR IV
NEW DELHI-24
3:M/S MIDEAST PIPELINE PRODUCTS
9 OLD COURT HOUSE STREET
KOLKATA
WEST BENGAL-700001
Page No.# 2/3
4:MANINDER SINGH
PROPRIETOR OF M/S MIDEAST PIPELINE PRODUCTS
R/O FLAT NO-78 BUILDING
-FF
GALI NO-13
BHARAT NAGAR
NEW FRIENDS COLONY
SOUTH DELHI-2
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K SAHEWALLA, MR D GOSWAMI,MR. W SHARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. S S ROY (R-1,2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
01.10.2024
Heard Mr. A. K. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits
that the respondent No. 3 had participated in a tender process for the work
"Pipeline Installation by HDD Methodology (Part-1) for India Bangladesh
Friendship Pipeline Project of Numaligarh Refinery Limited (NRL)(7293).
Thereafter, work order dated 19.02.2020 was issued in favour of the respondent
No. 3, wherein the estimated contract value was of Rs. 92,43,900/-. Though the
stipulated time for completing the work was 18.08.2020, the work in question
was completed only on 31.08.2022.
2. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 submitted a final bill dated 06.06.2023 for
Rs.23,59,78,509.01, including seven additional claims, correctness of such
additional claims being denied by the petitioner.
3. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 4 approached the respondent No. 2
and filed a complaint under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006, alleging
delayed payment by the petitioner to the respondent No. 3 and demanding an
Page No.# 3/3
amount of Rs. 30,24,40,251/-.
4. The complaint filed by the respondent No. 4 was registered as Application
No. UDYAM-WB-10-0007681/S/00002 on 09.04.2024, which was received by the
petitioner thereafter.
5. The petitioner's counsel submits that in terms of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Vaishno Enterprises vs. Hamilton Medical
AG and another, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 355, when a party is not
a MSMED at the time the contract is entered into, any dispute between the
parties cannot be governed by the MSME Act and the parties shall be governed
by the laws prevailing at the time of the execution of the contract.
6. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.
7. Mr. S. S. Roy, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent
Nos. 1 & 2.
8. The petitioner shall take steps for service of notice upon the respondent
Nos. 3 & 4 by registered post with A/D within the two days.
9. Also issue notice on the prayer for interim stay of the notice dated
09.04.2024 issued by the Felicitation Council and a stay of any consequential
proceeding.
10. In addition to the above, the petitioner shall also serve notice upon the
respondent Nos. 3 & 4 through dasti service and file affidavit of service
thereafter.
10. List this matter on 06.11.2024.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
