Madras High Court
M/S.Dee-Tech Projects Pvt. Ltd vs M/S.Subaya Constructions Co. Ltd on 24 August, 2023
W.A.No.1751 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.A.No.1751 of 2021
M/s.Dee-Tech Projects Pvt. Ltd.,
(Earleir Known as M/s.Dee-tech Engineers)
rep. by its Director S.Sivaraman
129, Aani Street, Chinmaya Nagar,
Chennai-600 092. .. Appellant
Vs
1.M/s.Subaya Constructions Co. Ltd.,
rep. by its Director S.Meenakshi
No.21, Soundarapandian Street,
Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600 083.
2.The Chairman,
The Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council,
Chennai Region, Guindy,
Chennai. .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 16.3.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5452
of 2017.
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1751 of 2021
For the Appellant : Mr.R.Parthasarathy
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Tanushree Arvind
For the Respondents : Mr.N.L.Rajah
Senior Counsel
for Mr.B.Natarajan
for respondent No.1
: R2 – No Appearance
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Heard Mr.R.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant and Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned Senior Counsel for the first
respondent.
2. The appellant assails the order passed by the learned
Single Judge, thereby setting aside the impugned order/award
passed by the Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation (MSEF) Council.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the
matter was referred to the MSEF Council. The conciliation
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1751 of 2021
proceedings were taken up. The conciliation proceedings failed.
The matter had come up before this Court in an earlier writ petition.
The first respondent filed an affidavit that they are ready to go for
arbitration before the Council and it is in that manner, the
proceedings for arbitration were taken up by the Council. These
aspects have not been considered by the learned Single Judge while
passing the order. Before the Council, the appellant had filed its
claim. The first respondent had filed its counter. The documents
were also filed and taken on record. In view of that, the Council
had passed the award. The award could only have been challenged
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent submits
that, in fact, after the conciliation proceedings failed, arbitration
proceedings can be taken up. From the judgment, nor from the
record of the MSEF Council, it can be concluded that the conciliation
proceedings has failed and the arbitration proceedings were taken
up by the Council. It is in the same proceedings, the order is
passed by the MSEF Council. The learned Single Judge has
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1751 of 2021
considered the said aspect.
5. We have considered the submissions made by learned
respective Senior Counsels.
6. From perusal of the order/award passed by the MSEF
Council, it is manifest that major part of the order deals with the
conciliation proceedings and only in two paragraphs, the award
seems to have been passed. The impugned order, in a strict sense,
is not an award. No discussion has been made in the said award.
No reasons are given. Up to paragraph 16, the discussion is about
the documents placed on record. In paragraph 17, the observation
is about the presence of the petitioner and the respondent with
their counsel and the petitioner producing evidence and the
respondent being unable to produce evidence. It was further
observed that TWAD Board has confirmed that all payments have
been made to the respondent, including retention amount. In
paragraph 18, it is stated that one more opportunity is given to the
respondent for producing proof of evidence. In paragraph 19, it is
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1751 of 2021
stated that the respondent neither appeared nor gave any further
documents/details. Thereafter, extracting the provisions of Section
15 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act,
2006 (for short, “the MSMED Act, 2006”), the order has been
passed. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the
award has been passed without discussion and the same cannot be
termed as an award and has exercised his jurisdiction. We cannot
find any fault with the order passed by the learned Single Judge on
that count.
7. The learned Single Judge has referred the matter for
arbitration to the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre.
8. We asked learned Senior Counsels for the appellant and the
first respondent as to whether the matter can be referred to the
MSEF Council for arbitration as contemplated under Section 18 of
the MSMED Act, 2006. Both learned Senior Counsels for the
appellant and the first respondent accede to the same.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1751 of 2021
9. In the light of that, the order of the learned Single Judge is
modified to the extent that the matter is referred back for
arbitration to the MSEF Council. The appellant and the first
respondent shall appear before the MSEF Council on 11.09.2023.
The MSEF Council shall thereafter take up arbitration proceedings in
accordance with the procedure. The parties shall co-operate for
expeditious disposal of the proceedings before the MSEF Council.
10. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
24.08.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
bbr
To
The Chairman,
The Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council,
Chennai Region, Guindy,
Chennai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1751 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.
bbr
W.A.No.1751 of 2021
24.08.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
