Madras High Court
M/S.Super Steam Boilers ... vs The Micro on 6 October, 2021
W.P.No.20964 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.10.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Writ Petition No.20964 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.22226 and 22229 of 2021
M/s.Super Steam Boilers Engineers Pvt Ltd.
Rep.by its Director Mr.Nazeer A.Kazi
Plot No.A.402, TTC Industrial Area
MIDC Village, Mahape
Navi Mumbai-400 701. …. Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Micro, Small Enterprises Facilitation Council
Coimbatore Region, Rep.by its Chairperson
Office of the Industries Commissioner and
Director of Industries and Commerce
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
2.M/s.Unicon Engineers
Rep.by its Managing Partner P.Ponram
613-A/6, Bharathi Road
Chinnavedampatti Post
Coimbatore-6. …. Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus alling for the records relating to the
proceedings in Case No.MSEFC / CBER / 219 / 2019 dated 10.12.2020 issued by the
1st respondent quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to
conduct the proceedings in accordance with Section 18 of the MSME Act 2006 and
pass an order after affording sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20964 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bharath Kumar
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the first
respondent dated 10.12.2020 and for a consequential direction to the first respondent
to conduct the proceedings in accordance with Section 18 of the Micro, Small and
Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'MSME Act').
The learned counsel submitted that even when the conciliation proceedings were
pending, the first respondent went ahead to decide the dispute between the parties
and the said procedure contemplated is in direct violation of Section 18(3) of the
MSME Act. It was further submitted that the petitioner was not given sufficient
opportunity to put forth his case since the first respondent came to a conclusion that
the parties are not able to come to a settlement in the conciliation proceedings and in
the very next hearing on 10.12.2020, the proceedings were concluded and the
impugned order was passed. This according to the petitioner is in direct violation of
the provisions of the MSME Act. The learned counsel, while substantiating his
submissions, relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in Ramesh
Conductors Pvt Ltd., -vs- M&SE Facilitation Council (Micro & Small
Enterprises)” reported in 2016(1) C.T.C.403.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20964 of 2021
2. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and the materials available on record.
3. This Court carefully went through the order passed by the first respondent.
It is seen from the said order that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings
right through both during the stage when it was referred for conciliation and at the
stage when it was taken up for arbitration, after the conciliation failed. The petitioner
having participated in the entire proceedings and have put forth their defence and the
learned counsel for the petitioner was allowed to make his submissions on the defence
taken by the petitioner and hence, this Court is not satisfied with the stand taken by
the petitioner to the effect that the first respondent did not follow the procedure under
Section 18 of the MSME Act. The first respondent has taken into consideration the
claim made by the second respondent and the defence raised by the petitioner and
has come to the conclusion on the merits of the case based on the materials placed
before the first respondent. After having participated in the proceedings right
through, the petitioner cannot be allowed to turn back and question the order passed
by the first respondent by pointing out some procedural irregularity.
4. It is true that this Court had interfered with the orders passed by the Council
whenever it was found that there was a gross violation of Section 18 of the Act.
There is absolutely no quarrel with the law that was discussed in the judgment that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20964 of 2021
was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, the
order passed by the first respondent clearly shows that the petitioner was given
sufficient opportunity and the petitioner had also put forth their defence. Thereafter,
this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
cannot interfere with the order on the ground of some procedural irregularity which
does not go to the root of the matter. The petitioner ought to have challenged the
award passed by the first respondent under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and
having failed to do so, the petitioner is only making an attempt to question the order
passed by the first respondent after nearly nine months, by way of filing the present
writ petition.
5. This Court is not convinced with the grounds raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioner and this Court does not find any merits to entertain this writ petition.
6. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
06.10.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
KST
Note : Issue order copy on 08.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20964 of 2021
To
1.The Chairperson,
Micro, Small Enterprises Facilitation Council
Coimbatore Region,
Office of the Industries Commissioner and
Director of Industries and Commerce
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
2.The Managing Partner
M/s.Unicon Engineers
613-A/6, Bharathi Road
Chinnavedampatti Post
Coimbatore-6.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.20964 of 2021
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
kst
W.P.No.20964 of 2021
06.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
