[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
M/S.Online Service Company vs The Regional Joint Director/General ... on 16 March, 2026
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P.(MD).No.22588 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16-03-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.(MD).No.22588 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD).No.18835 of 2023
M/s.Online Service Company
Represented by Proprietor
Mahatma Natesan
S/o. K. Natesan
66A/9 - Babuji Nagar
Tirunelveli District - 627 001. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Regional Joint Director/General Manager,
Department of Industries and Commerce,
Micro Small and Enterprisers Facilitation Council,
District Industries Centre,
Alagar Koil Road,
Madurai - 625 002.
2. Pantel Technologies Private Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director,
E-33, Sector 63,
Noida - 201 301,
Uttar Pradesh.
3. Gangan Gulati,
Interim Resolution Professional (IRP),
IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00893/2019-2020/12832,
A179, First Floor,
Sudarsan Park,
New Delhi - 110 015. ... Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 03:37:29 pm )
W.P.(MD).No.22588 of 2023
PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records pertaining to the awards passed by the 1st
respondent vide letter in Rc. No.4440/D4/2020 dated 18.09.2020 and
letter in RC. No.951/D4/2023 dated 12.04.2023, to and quash the same
as illegal and further direct the 1st respondent to rehear and dispose the
claims of the petitioner in Appln. No. TN-18-B0025489/S/00001 dated
13.05.2020 and Appln. No. UDYAM-TN-18-0011105/M/00001 dated
08.02.2023 in accordance with law in an expeditious manner within the
time frame as fixed by this Honble Court and pass such further or other
orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances
of the case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.Pozhilan
for M/s.C.Arulvadivel Associates
For R1 : Mr.M.Lingadurai
Special Government Pleader
For R2 & R3 : No Appearance
ORDER
The writ petition is filed challenging the award passed by the 1"
respondent dated 18.09.2020 and the consequential letter dated
12.04.2023 and to quash the same and consequently direct the 1
respondent to rehear and dispose of the claims of the petitioner in Appln.
No. UDYAM-TN-18-011105/M/00001 accordance with law in an
expeditious manner. dated 08.02.2023 in accordance with law in an
expeditious manner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 03:37:29 pm )
2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and
perusing the material records of the case, it is submitted that the
petitioner is engaged in the dealership of television services, solar panel
installation, and DTH sales, installation, and related services. The
petitioner also holds a valid GST Registration Certificate. The petitioner
obtained a Udyog Aadhaar Registration Certificate on 29.03.2020 under
the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) scheme.
Subsequently, another Udyog Aadhaar Registration Certificate was
obtained on 25.06.2021. The 2nd respondent entered into a Service
Agreement with the petitioner for rendering services as a zonal
distributor for the sale, installation, and supply of DTH services under
the name and style “Independent TV.” The said Service Agreement is a
registered agreement dated 05.11.2018.
3. As per the agreement, the petitioner was required to invest
approximately Rs.2,00,00,000/-. Considering the margin of profit and
future prospects, the petitioner obtained a loan from Bank of Baroda
under a scheme applicable to Micro Small and Medium Enterprises
(MSME) and invested a sum of ?95,00,000/- in the business. However,
the DTH services supplied suddenly failed to receive signals, resulting in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 03:37:29 pm )
customer dissatisfaction. Under these circumstances, the petitioner made
the present claim before the 1st respondent authority. The 1st respondent,
by the impugned order, rejected the claim on the grounds that the
petitioner’s activity is not eligible to invoke the jurisdiction of the 1st
respondent and secondly, that the respondent company had already
approached the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, by
virtue of the Udyog Aadhaar MSME certificate dated 29.03.2020 and the
subsequent certificate issued by the authorities on 25.06.2021, it is clear
that the petitioner’s activity falls within the jurisdiction of the 1st
respondent.
5. With reference to the second ground, namely that liquidation
proceedings are pending, the learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that, though it is true that the matter is pending before the
National Company Law Tribunal, there is no bar preventing the 1st
respondent authority from entertaining and deciding the claim on merits.
It is further submitted that, if the 1st respondent finds merit in the claim
and passes an award, the petitioner would attain the status of a secured
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 03:37:29 pm )
creditor and would rank higher in the order of priority under the waterfall
mechanism as contemplated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Therefore, the petitioner seeks appropriate directions in this regard.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf
of the 1st respondent would submit that, since insolvency proceedings
have already been initiated and the sum of ?43,84,060/- has been
submitted to be treated as a claim before the liquidator, there is no
necessity to continue the present proceedings.
7. Since the Court was unsure about the stage of the
proceedings, and as it was stated that the Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process did not result in the revival of the company but
culminated in liquidation, an order of the Appellate Tribunal was also
placed before this Court. Further, this Court noted that the 3rd
respondent, Mr. Gangan Gulati, had issued a communication claiming to
be the liquidator of the 2nd respondent, namely Pantel Technologies
Private Limited. In order to ascertain the correct position, and although
notice had already been served on the 3rd respondent, he had not entered
appearance. Therefore, this Court directed that fresh notice be served on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 03:37:29 pm )
the 3rd respondent once again, through e-mail as well as telephonically at
the mobile number 9717999399 mentioned in the said communication.
8. Accordingly, notice of today’s hearing was once again served
on the 3rd respondent through the e-mail ID: [email protected].
The petitioner’s counsel also attempted to inform the 3rd respondent over
the phone by calling the mobile number 9717999399, and it is submitted
that the call was received and the information was duly conveyed.
Despite the same, there is no appearance on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd
respondents today.
9. In view of the contention that there is no subsisting
moratorium or other legal impediment preventing the petitioner from
proceeding with the claim before the 1st respondent authority, and that,
in the event of any award or decree being passed, the petitioner would
have to approach the 3rd respondent, albeit as a secured creditor, this
Court is of the view that the writ petition can be allowed, particularly
when the contesting respondents have chosen not to appear before this
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 03:37:29 pm )
10. The impugned order has been passed on two grounds.
Firstly, it is stated that the petitioner’s activity does not fall within the
jurisdiction of the 1st respondent authority. However, the nature of
activities, as set out in the affidavit and supported by the Udyog Aadhaar
Certificate (referred to supra), clearly establishes that the petitioner is a
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME). Therefore, the petitioner
is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent authority,
especially when a sum is due from the 2nd respondent company.
As regards the second contention, the mere pendency of liquidation
proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal would not
disentitle the petitioner from pursuing the claim, unless there is an order
of moratorium in force or the liquidation proceedings have been
concluded. The proceedings can continue. As rightly contended by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, if the claim is found to have merit and
a decree is passed, at the stage of disbursement, the petitioner would
assume the status of a secured creditor and rank higher in the order of
priority under the waterfall mechanism.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 03:37:29 pm )
11. In view thereof, this writ petition is allowed on the following
terms:-
i. The impugned order dated 18.09.2020 shall stand set aside and the
matter is remitted back to the file of the 1" respondent for fresh
consideration on merits and in accordance with law.
ii. The 1st respondent shall conduct the proceedings and dispose of
the same in any event not later than four months from the date of
receipt of the web copy of the order.
iii. No costs.
iv. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.03.2026
Index: Yes
Speaking Order: Yes
Neutral Citation: No
rgm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 03:37:29 pm )
To
The Regional Joint Director/General Manager,
Department of Industries and Commerce,
Micro Small and Enterprisers Facilitation Council,
District Industries Centre,
Alagar Koil Road,
Madurai - 625 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 03:37:29 pm )
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
rgm
and
16.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2026 03:37:29 pm )
