Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mirador Commercial Pvt. Ltd vs Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation ... on 13 December, 2023
Author: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Bench: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160768
2023:PHHC:160768
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.1028 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 13.12.2023
Mirador Commercial Pvt. Ltd.
.....Revisionist-Petitioner.
Versus
Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and another
.....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
*****
Argued by:- Mr. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate, appearing for
Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for respondent No.1.
Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
By filing the instant revision-petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has laid challenge to order Annexure
P-5 handed down by respondent No.1-Council on 10.01.2013, whereby the
application (Annexure P-4), as moved by it (petitioner) under Section 8 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with the prayer to refer the
dispute between it and respondent No.2 to the sole Arbitrator named Mr. D.
Simpson Rajasekaran, has been rejected.
2. As per the brief factual-matrix emerging from the perusal of
the record and culminating in the filing of the present revision-petition, one
Purchase Order Agreement (Annexure P-1 and for short 'the POA') had
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160768
CR No.1028 of 2013 (O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:160768
been executed between the petitioner and respondent No.2 for the supply/
purchase of the goods and as per Clause 39 thereof, the parties had agreed
that any dispute or difference or question, arising between them in respect
of their rights and liabilities thereunder, would be referred to the sole
Arbitrator, to be appointed by the owner only. Further, from the contents of
Annexure P-2, the copy of the letter dated 08.11.2012 shown to have been
addressed by the petitioner to respondent No.2, it transpires that a dispute
had arisen between the parties regarding the payment of an amount of
Rs.11,10,769/-, as claimed by respondent No.2 to be outstanding against
the petitioner for the goods supplied by it and respondent No.2 had made
its Reference to respondent No.1-Council, as envisaged under Section 18 of
the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (here-
in-after to be referred as 'the MSMED Act'). After putting in appearance
before respondent No.1 in pursuance of the notice as issued by it, the
petitioner moved the afore-mentioned application (Annexure P-4), which
has been rejected vide the impugned order, as already indicated in the
opening para of this judgment.
3. It is worth-while to mention here that vide the order passed by
the Co-ordinate Bench on 28.07.2014, the instant revision-petition had
been adjourned sine-die to await the decision in LPA No.491 of 2012, as
stated to be pending before the Division Bench of this Court.
4. It is also pertinent to point it out here that vide the order
passed by this Court on 15.11.2023, the application bearing CM No.5888-
CII of 2021, as filed by respondent No.2 with the prayer for fixing some
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160768
CR No.1028 of 2013 (O&M) -3- 2023:PHHC:160768
actual date of hearing in the present revision-petition, had been allowed and
accordingly, this revision petition had been taken on the Board on that day.
5. It will also not be out of place to mention here that respondent
No.2 has moved another application bearing CM No.6185-CII of 2023 for
seeking the dismissal of the instant revision-petition in view of the verdict
handed down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Gujrat State
Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd (Unit 2) and
another, 2022 SCC Online 1492 ( decided on 31.10.2022), while averring
that the dispute involved in this revision-petition, is covered by the same.
6. Reply to this application has already been filed on behalf of
the petitioner, wherein it has been asserted that the above-referred LPA is
still pending adjudication before the Division Bench.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as
well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 in the present revision petition
and also on CM No.6185-CII of 2023 and have perused the file carefully.
8. As mentioned earlier, the dispute arisen between the petitioner
and respondent No.2, pertains to the supply of goods in pursuance of the
POA and thus, it squarely falls within the four corners of the provisions as
contained in Section 17 of the MSMED Act and respondent No.2 has made
the Reference in respect thereof to respondent No.1-Council, under Section
18(1) of the said Act. Mere factum of the pendency of the afore-mentioned
LPA, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not suffice at all to be a
cogent and valid ground to keep the instant revision-petition alive/pending
any more in the circumstances, when the issue/matter/controversy, directly
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160768
CR No.1028 of 2013 (O&M) -4- 2023:PHHC:160768
involved herein, has been put to the rest by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
the judgment as rendered in Gujrat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.
(supra), while observing that "the MSMED Act of 2006, being the special
law and the Arbitration Act of 1996, being the general law, the provisions
of the MSMED Act of 2006 would have precedence over and prevail over
the Arbitration Act of 1996 and even if the Arbitration Act of 1996 is
treated as special law, then also, the MSMED Act of 2006, having been
enacted subsequently in point of time, would have over-riding effect in view
of Section 24 of the MSMED Act of 2006 and no party to the dispute
covered under Section 17 of the Act would be precluded from making
reference to the Facilitation Council under Section 18(1) thereof merely
because there is arbitration agreement existing between the parties." These
observations clinch the entire controversy in this revision-petition and in
the light of the same, it is held that the impugned order Annexure P-5 is
perfectly legal and valid.
9. Resultantly, the revision-petition in hand stands dismissed and
the application bearing CM No.6185-CII of 2023, as filed by respondent
No.2, stands allowed accordingly.
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
December 13, 2023 JUDGE
Yag Dutt
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:160768
4 of 4
