Gannon Dunkerley And Co. Limited ... vs Micro And Small Enterprises ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 22268 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Gannon Dunkerley And Co. Limited ... vs Micro And Small Enterprises ... on 22 December, 2023

Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla

Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla

                                                               1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                       WP No. 30654 of 2023
                            (GANNON DUNKERLEY AND CO. LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY RAMESH MISHRA Vs
                                      MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL AND OTHERS)

                           Dated : 22-12-2023
                                 Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

                                 Shri Manoj Munshi and Shri Lucky Jain, learned counsel for the
                           Respondent [CAVEAT].

In the present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of order dated 07.07.2023 passed by respondent no.1 in MSEFC/1697/2022, whereby, the

prayer for dismissal of reference was made on the ground of want of jurisdiction has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the proceedings before MSME, the prayer was made for dismissal of the reference on the ground that the matter pertains to Works Contract and therefore, the same was not maintainable under the provisions of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. He submits that the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner Central Excise Vs. M/S. Larsen & Turbo Ltd reported in (2016) 2 SCC 170 held that the works contract is a separate species of work

distinct from contract for service simpliciter.

He also referred para 22 the judgment passed by High Court of Bombay in Arbitration Appeal ST No.30508/2019 decided on 01.03.2021 that in a case of Works Contract, the reference is not maintainable under the Act, 2006.

Learned counsel for the caveator submits that the judgment referred by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of P.L. Adke Vs. Wardha Municipal Corporation is not applicable to the present case.

Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is noted that one of the issue

regarding nature of the contract, the council held that the nature of the contract is works contract, therefore, the issue regarding jurisdiction of the council requires adjudication. Considering the same, prima facie I find case to be arguable and therefore, the respondent no.2 is granted time to file reply. Since the respondent no.2 is represented, no notice is required to be issued.

List in the second week of January, 2024.

Till the next date of hearing, the proceedings pending before the council will continue, however, the council will not pass final order without leave of this court.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE

Sourabh