Madras High Court
Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited vs Micro And Small Enterprises ... on 19 October, 2024
C.R.P.No.4206 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.4206 of 2024 &
CMP.No.23311 of 2024
Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited : Petitioner
versus
1.Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council,
Chennai Region,
Represented by its Secretary / Regional Joint Director
of Industries and Commerce,
A-30, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032.
2.M/s.M.Govindaraj Contractor & Earth Movers,
Plot No.C-1, Flat No.F2,
Jansi Aishwariyam Apartments,
Thiruvallur Nagar, MKN Road,
Alandur, Chennai – 600 016. : Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking
to set aside the order dated 29.08.2024 bearing reference number
RC.No.5907/A3/2022 passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises
Facilitation Council, Chennai Region thereby consequently, strike down the
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4206 of 2024
proceedings bearing reference number MSEFC/CR/423/2022 pending on the
file of the first respondent, Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation
Council, Chennai Region.
For Petitioner : Mr.Om Prakash, Senior Counsel,
for Mr.Raghavendra Ross Divakar
For Respondent 2 : Mr.K.Krishnan
ORDER
I have heard Mr.Om Prakash, learned senior counsel for
Mr.Raghavendra Ross Divakar appearing for the civil revision petitioner
and Mr.K.Krishnan for the second respondent.
2. The civil revision petition seeks to strike off the proceedings in
R.C.No.5907/A3/2022 dated 29.08.2024.
3. The civil revision petitioner is the respondent before the Micro and
Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (hereinafter referred to as “MSEFC.)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The simple case of the civil revision petitioner is that the second
respondent had entered into a works' contract with it and hence, a
proceeding under MSME Act is not maintainable. The second respondent,
pleading that the civil revision petitioner has defaulted in payment, had
initiated proceedings invoking the provisions of Micro, Small and Medium
Enterprises Development Act of 2006. The civil revision petitioner took an
objection before the MSEFC that, being a works contract, it is not covered
under the provisions of this Act. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition before
this Court in W.P.No.4861 of 2024 sought for quashing of the proceedings
initiated by the first respondent.
5. This Court did not agree with the plea of the petitioner that the
proceedings need not be quashed. After referring to the judgment in Gujarat
State Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd. v. Mahakali Foods (P) Ltd., (2023) 6 SCC
401, it passed the following directions:
“5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions
made, this Court without expressing any view on the
merits of the controversy involved, passes the following
order:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(i) before passing any final order in the
Proceedings No. MSEFC/ CR/423/2022, the
concerned authority shall immediately
examine the petition filed by the Petitioner
under Section 16 of the A & C Act on
27.02.2024 regarding the jurisdiction of the
First Respondent to entertain the claim of the
Second Respondent;
(ii) if it is found that any other details
or supporting documents is necessary, the
deficiencies in that regard shall be informed
in writing to the persons concerned requiring
the same to be furnished within a specified
time frame for the same;
(iii) in the event of not being satisfied
with the requirements even thereafter, an
enquiry shall be conducted affording full
opportunity of personal hearing to the
Petitioner and all other persons concerned to
explain their position in that regard; and
(iv) a reasoned order shall be passed
dealing with each of the contentions raised on
merits and in accordance with law and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
decision taken communicated under written
acknowledgment.”
6. Mr.Om Prakash submits despite a specific direction of this Court
that the first respondent should examine the petition that has been filed by
the civil revision petitioner under Section 16 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation act and thereafter pass a reasoned order, the first respondent has
failed to do so and has passed the impugned order.
7. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the first respondent has
merely extracted the directions that have been given by this Court in
WP.No.4861 of 2024 dated 27.02.2024 and disposed the petition filed under
Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and in a laconic manner.
8. The directions given by this Court are clear and categorical.
Honourable Mr.Justice P.D.Audikesavalu has specifically directed the first
respondent to pass a reasoned order dealing with each and every contention
that has been raised by the civil revision petitioner and the respondent on the
merits of the petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. I did not find anywhere in the impugned order that the exercise
carried on by it in accordance with the aforesaid directions.
10. Mr.K.Krishnan appearing for the second respondent agrees that he
has received the written submission that was filed by the civil revision
petitioner on 21.06.2024. In the written submission, it has been specifically
pleaded in paragraph 4 that the contract between the parties is in the nature
of the “works contract” and by virtue of judgment of this Court, the MSEFC
does not have jurisdiction.
11. As the first respondent has not performed the exercise required to
determine its jurisdiction in terms of Section 16 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, I am constrained to interfere with the same.
12. Accordingly, the order dated 29.08.2024 passed in
RC.No.5907/A3/2022 is set aside. The first respondent is directed to re-do
the exercise directed by this Court in W.P.No.4861 of 2024 dated
27.02.2024. It shall pass a reasoned order as directed by this Court. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
exercise should be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this Order. The first respondent shall act on the web
copy of this order that may be produced either by the civil revision petitioner
or by the second respondent.
13. With the above directions, this civil revision petition is allowed.
No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.10.2024
nl
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
1.The Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Chennai Region
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
nl
19.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
