Rajasthan High Court
Superintending Engineer (Mm) vs M/S Western Transformers And Equipment ... on 5 January, 2024
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari, Bhuwan Goyal
[2024:RJ-JP:745-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3089/2022
Superintending Engineer (Mm), Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam
Limited Old Power House, Near Ram Mandir, Banipark, Jaipur,
Raj. Through Office In-Charge Executive Engineer (Spo-V) Office
A Superintending Engineer (Padarth Parbandhan) Jaipur Vidyut
Vitaran Nigam Limited, Old Power House, Near Ram Mandir, Bani
Park, Jaipur. At Present Officer In Charge Executive Engineer
(Spo-V) Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd, Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
M/s Western Transformers And Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Through
Proprietor, Industrial Area, Mathura Road, Bharatpur 321001.
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3086/2022
Superintending Engineer (Mm), Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam
Limited Old Power House, Near Ram Mandir, Banipark, Jaipur,
Raj. Through Office In-Charge Executive Engineer (Spo-V) Office
A Superintending Engineer (Padarth Parbandhan) Jaipur Vidyut
Vitaran Nigam Limited, Old Power House, Near Ram Mandir, Bani
Park, Jaipur. At Present Officer In Charge Executive Engineer
(Spo-V) Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd, Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
M/s Western Transformers And Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Through
Proprietor, Industrial Area, Mathura Road, Bharatpur-321001.
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3087/2022
Superintending Engineer (Mm), Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam
Limited Old Power House, Near Ram Mandir, Banipark, Jaipur,
Raj. Through Office In-Charge Executive Engineer (Spo-V) Office
A Superintending Engineer (Padarth Parbandhan) Jaipur Vidyut
Vitaran Nigam Limited, Old Power House, Near Ram Mandir, Bani
Park, Jaipur. At Present Officer In Charge Executive Engineer
(Spo-V) Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd, Jaipur.
----Appellant
[2024:RJ-JP:745-DB] (2 of 5) [CMA-3089/2022]
Versus
M/s Western Transformers And Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Through
Proprietor, Industrial Area, Mathura Road, Bharatpur-321001.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bipin Gupta, Adv. &
Mr. Naman Pareek, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja, Adv. &
Mr. Kartikeya Sharma, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Judgment
05/01/2024
1. Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the order
dated 13.03.2020 passed by the Commercial Court to the extent
that it has remanded the matter back to the Micro and Small
Enterprises Facilitation Council (hereinafter referred to as
"Facilitation Council").
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that as
per Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Act
2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2006"), a reference can be
made to Facilitation Council by any party. Sub-Clause 4 and 5 of
Section 18 of Act of 2006 reads as under:-
"(4) Notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law for the time being in force, the
Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council
or the centre providing alternate dispute
resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act
as an Arbitrator or Conciliator under this
section in a dispute between the supplier
located within its jurisdiction and a buyer
located anywhere in India.
(5) Every reference made under this
section shall be decided within a period of
ninety days from the date of making such a
reference."
[2024:RJ-JP:745-DB] (3 of 5) [CMA-3089/2022]
3. It is also contended that the learned Commercial Court after
having set aside the award has erred in remanding the matter
back to the Facilitation Council for the very reason that there is no
provision under the Act of 2006 or the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1940 with regard to remand the matter back to the
Facilitation Council.
4. It is argued that in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940,
there were provisions for remand but in the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, there is limited power of remand under
Section 34(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on
Project Director, National Highway Versus M. Hakeem and
Anr. (2021) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that
the object of the Act is to provide for facilitating the promotion
and development and enhancing the competitiveness of micro,
small and medium enterprises and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto. It is contended that the
Facilitation Council is the only authority which is empowered to
adjudicate the dispute between the parties. It is also contended
that the Commercial Court had set aside the award as it was not
passed in accordance with the procedure provided under Section
18 of Act of 2006 and there were procedural lapses. It is further
contended that since the only authority which can adjudicate the
dispute is the Facilitation Council, referring the matter to the same
cannot be said to be illegal.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on
Silpi Industries and Ors. Versus Kerala State Road
[2024:RJ-JP:745-DB] (4 of 5) [CMA-3089/2022]
Transport Corporation and Ors. [AIR 2021 SC 5487],
Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Versus The State of
Rajasthan and Ors. [2021 9 SCR 497], Narmada
Transmission Private Limited Versus Rajasthan Rajya
Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited [AIR 2023 Raj. 36], Ajmer
Vidyut Nigam Limited Versus M/s Anamika Conductors
Limited [D.B. Special Appeal No.351/2021 connected with
Appeal No.352/2021 decided on 14.12.2022] and M/s
Narmada Transmission Private Limited Versus Rajasthan
Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Ors. [SLP
No.10468/2023 decided on 16.05.2023].
8. We have considered the contentions.
9. Admittedly, the Act of 2006 is a comprehensive and special
legislation. The only authority which is empowered to decide the
dispute is the Facilitation Council. From perusal of the impugned
order, it is evident that the award has been set aside only on
account of procedural lapses, which fact is not disputed by counsel
for the parties.
10. Division Bench of this Court in Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam
Limited (Supra) and Narmada Transmission Private Limited
(Supra) had after quashing and setting aside the award,
remanded the matter back to the Facilitation Council for a fresh
consideration. The order passed in Narmada Transmission Private
Limited (Supra) was challenged before the Apex Court and the
Apex Court has dismissed the SLP.
11. Thus, we are of the considered view that the only authority
which can settle the dispute is the Facilitation Council and the
[2024:RJ-JP:745-DB] (5 of 5) [CMA-3089/2022]
remand back of the matter to the Facilitation Council cannot be
said to have caused prejudice to any of the party.
12. We do not find any force in the present appeal, hence the
same is dismissed.
13. Stay application and pending interim application also stands
disposed off.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
Keshav/Sdk/8-10
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
