Vedenta Exports vs Micro And Small Enterprises ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5808 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.V.N.BHATTI

                                    &

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

         WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945

                           W.A. NO.748 OF 2023

  (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 24368/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA)

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:


            VEDENTA EXPORTS, 763/8, VEDANTA COMPLEX, KUNNITALA,
            PERAVOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 673,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, DR.VASUDEVAN, AGED 53 YEARS,
            S/O.T.K.NARAYANAN.
            BY ADVS.
            GEORGE MATHEW
            M.D.SASIKUMARAN
            SUNIL KUMAR A.G
            MATHEW K.T.
            GEORGE K.V.
            STEPHY K REGI
            ADARSH KURIAN


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:


     1      MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL
            KERALA, DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
            VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033
     2      WAYANAD SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY,
            MP.III/127, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD-670 645,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
            BY ADV K.N.CHANDRABABU


     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.05.2023, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                     2

W.A.No.748 of 2023




                            JUDGMENT

(Dated: 24thMay, 2023)

Basant Balaji, J.

The appellant has approached this court by filing W.P.(C)No.

24368 of 2016, challenging Ext.P9 order of the Micro and Small

Enterprises Facilitation Council in O.A.No.No.9 of 2015, wherein a

preliminary objection as to the maintainability has been found

against the petitioner.

2. The only question for consideration before the learned

single Judge was whether Ext.P9 is in order or needs interference.

3. The 2nd respondent filed O.A. No.5 of 2013 for recovery of

Rs.18 lakhs from the petitioner. The petitioner raised a preliminary

objection regarding the maintainability as per Ext.P3. The

preliminary objection was heard by the council. It relied on Ext.P2,

which categorises the 2nd respondent as a Medium Enterprise and

W.A.No.748 of 2023

held that the applicant could not sustain the application, and

thereby it was dismissed. The petitioner's case is that after the

dismissal of the Ext.P1 application, the 2 nd respondent again filed

another application before the council as O.A. No.9 of 2015,

claiming the same relief as in Ext.P1. To the said application, a

preliminary objection was raised through Ext.P8. The council

thereafter, by Ext.P9 order, held that the applicant firm can agitate

the matter regarding the claim of the amount as the firm is a Micro

Enterprise. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the

Writ Petition.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent,

wherein it was contended that as per Ext.P6 issued on 05.08.2014,

the category of the Enterprise is defined as 'Micro'. The Industrial

Department has issued this certificate and it is based on the said

certification, the 2nd respondent has filed the complaint before the

W.A.No.748 of 2023

council. Indeed, earlier by Ext.P2, the society was termed a Medium

Enterprise, but the Industries Department, through Ext. P6 has

reclassified the society as a Small Enterprise. In view of the

certificate issued by the Industries Department, the counsel held

that the complaint is maintainable though, in the earlier round, it

was rejected as the Unit was, then a Medium Enterprise. The

learned single Judge has rightly concurred with the finding in Ext.P9

based on Ext.P6. The only ground raised by the counsel for the

appellant Adv. George Mathew is that in the first round of litigation,

it is found that the complaint is not maintainable as the Enterprise

was a Medium Enterprise. Ext.P6 document is the only document

produced to support that the society is a Micro enterprise.

When Ext.P6 document is issued by a statutory authority

certifying that the society is a Small Enterprise, unless and until the

said document has been set aside or held to be bad in law, the

W.A.No.748 of 2023

petitioner cannot raise a contention against the 2nd respondent that

the unit is not a Micro Enterprise. For the above reason, we do not

find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned single

Judge. Resultantly, the writ appeal fails, and the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

S.V.N.BHATTI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE ss