Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S M.N Agencies vs Mse Facilitation Council Ludhiana And ... on 18 April, 2024
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051857-DB
LPA-2126-2023 (O&M) 1 2024:PHHC:051857-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
108 LPA-2126-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.04.2024
M/s M.N Agencies ....Appellant
Versus
MSE Facilitation Council, Ludhiana and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present: Ms. Aarushi Mahajan, Advocate
for the appellant.
*****
DEEPAK SIBAL, J.(ORAL)
The present intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment
dated 02.11.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing
the appellant's writ petition filed by it to challenge therein the award dated
16.02.2023 passed by the District Level Micro and Small Enterprises
Facilitation Council, Ludhiana (for short - the Council).
2) After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going
through the record of the case as also examining the impugned judgment, we
find that the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition on
the ground that before knocking the doors of this Court the appellant had not
availed the efficacious statutory remedy available to it under Section 19 of
the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short
- the MSMED Act, 2006). In this regard, the following observations by the
learned Single Judge may be referred to:-
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051857-DB
LPA-2126-2023 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:051857-DB
"At the outset, it is noticed that even thought the petitioner has
averred that it has exhausted all available avenues for seeking resolution
of the dispute and is left with no other remedy and is hence forced to
approach this Court. Such an averment in the writ petition is factually
incorrect inasmuch as the remedy of appeal has been prescribed under
Section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006.
Merely because a claimant pleads that it is not in a capacity to
make a pre-deposit cannot be the reason to approach the High Court
directly and in violation of the procedure prescribed in law.
Notwithstanding that there is no material to support the above plea, the
same cannot be accepted as a sufficient ground to approach the High
Court directly. The MSMED Act, 2006 mandates a pre-deposit and there is
no challenge to the statutory provision. In the absence of any challenge to
the statute, its requirement cannot be done away with. The mandate is thus
required to be followed and an inconvenience in making a pre-deposit
cannot be construed as a valid ground to not avail the alternative
remedies. The question as regards the relationship between the parties
being that of the principal and agent requires consideration on the basis of
the evidence adduced and not merely on the strength of a projection made.
There is nothing on the basis whereof it can be held that the Court where
the objections would lie is not competent to examine the said issue and/or
to adjudicate the aspect including that of jurisdiction of the Facilitation
Council to examine the said issue.
The sole reason which thereafter survives for approaching this
Court is the condition of a mandatory pre-deposit. I am of the considered
opinion that such a reason cannot be the basis for approaching this Court
directly. The legislature has specifically enshrined the above said clause
for the protection of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and has
provided for a mandatory pre-deposit so as to impose restrictions to
protect the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises from being subjected to
unnecessary litigation and delay in disbursement of their dues. The
constitutional validity of the said clause being not under challenge, there
can be no laxity against Rule of Law."
3) Thus, the learned Single Judge has held that the appellant
cannot be allowed to rush to this Court by bye-passing the statutory remedy
of appeal available to it only because at the time of availing of such remedy
the appellant is required to make a pre-deposit especially when, the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051857-DB
LPA-2126-2023 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:051857-DB
condition with regard to making of the pre-deposit had not even been
challenged by the appellant.
4) Dismissed.
5) Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
(DEEPAK SIBAL)
JUDGE
(DEEPAK MANCHANDA)
JUDGE
18.04.2024
Sapna
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
3 of 3
