Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Ccs Ostem Projects Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Haryana And Another on 1 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111853
CWP-14027-2020 1 2023:PHHC:111853
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
238
Reserved on:08.05.2023
Date of Decision:01.08.2023
M/S CCS OSTEM PROJECTS PVT. LTD. .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.
Present: Mr. Madhur Panwar and
Mr. Drupad Sangwan, Advocates,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ , J.
Challenge is to the communication dated 24.08.2020
(Annexure P-5) whereby the Facilitation Council had made a reference to
the Facilitator/Arbitrator in case No.1570/2020 submitted by respondent
No.2-M/s Me Machines. The petitioner is engaged in the business of
manufacturing various types of heavy machinery used in stone crushing and
washing plants. The petitioner also use to provide complete project-based
solutions for design, civil work, manufacturing, logistics, installation, testing
and final commissioning at site. The petitioner had received a notice from
the Facilitation Council dated 13.03.2020 which stated that the case before
MSME is listed for hearing on 18.03.2020. It was also averred that
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111853
CWP-14027-2020 2 2023:PHHC:111853
respondent No.2 had supplied a machine on 20.07.2017 vide bill No.021/17-
18 and full payment was to be made after the machine was installed in
proper working condition. It was averred that the machine was, however,
faulty and did not work. Intimation in this regard was immediately sent to
respondent No.2 who agreed to rectify the defect and to get the machine
functioning. Respondent No.2 was, however, unable to do so and that the
petitioner had already paid an amount of Rs.8,60,000/- to respondent No.2.
However, respondent No.2 was not able to fix the machine whereupon the
petitioner had to get it fixed from a third-party vendor and had to incur an
expenditure of Rs.1,04,312/-. The machine in question was although made
functional, however, the same was not at an optimum level. It was thus on
the above account that respondent No.2 raised the first demand after a lapse
of more than two years i.e. on 04.11.2019. On being confronted that the
machine was not a functional machine, respondent No.2 admitted the lapse,
however, it was contended that as the machine had become functional,
hence, payment fell due. A demand of Rs.15,00,000/- raised by respondent
No.2 was uncalled for and unjustified since the goods/products supplied by
the petitioner were defective and there was no undisputed liability towards
respondent No.2.
Written statement on behalf of respondent No.2 was filed
wherein reference was made to various judgments justifying the proceedings
that had been initiated and it was contended that the operations of
respondent No.2 started from 07.08.2014 which is specifically mentioned in
the Registration Certificate and the initiation of operation of the enterprise is
to be seen for computing jurisdiction and not the date from which its
registration was renewed under the MSME. It was averred that the said
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111853
CWP-14027-2020 3 2023:PHHC:111853
respondent was to provide old and used floor boring machine to the
petitioner and the payment in question was to be released upon receipt of the
machine. However, only an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- was released on
24.08.2017 and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was released on 03.04.2018.
The balance payment of Rs.15,00,000/- which was due, was withheld
whereupon the claim was filed before the Facilitation Council. It was also
stated that the petitioner had purchased the aforesaid second-hand machine
from respondent No.2 on "As is where is basis" and it was denied that the
machine in question was faulty. The machine was installed in the year 2017,
whereas repair is stated to have been done in the year 2018. The scope of
work of respondent No.2 was only to supply the machine and not to carry
out its repairs. It is contended that frivolous objections have now been
levelled to delay the payment and the lawfully pending dues to respondent
No.2.
It is relevant to mention here that the controversy in the present
writ petition has already been considered in CWP-12338-2019.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of, in
terms of the judgment of even date passed in CWP-12338-2019, titled as
"Indian Oil Corporation Limited Versus Haryana Micro and Small
Enterprise Facilitation Council, Chandigarh, Haryana and another".
August 01, 2023 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
seema JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:111853
3 of 3
