Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 837
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Charu Technology Pvt Ltd., Represented By Its Manging Director Shri Lakshmi Ram Thakuria – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, Represented By The Secy. To The Govt Of Assam, Public Health Engineering Deptt. And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/1504 of 2026
Decided On : 04-05-2026
For the Petitioner:Ms. M. Hazarika, Sr. Advocate, Mr. D. Khan, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. P.N. Goswami, Sr. Advocate, Mr. B. Gogoi, Addl. A.G., Mr. I. Kalita, Adv.
Where claims involve complex factual determinations regarding supply dates, goods acceptance, and precise compound interest calculations with monthly rests, such matters are best adjudicated by the specialized statutory council rather than through writ jurisdiction.
Headnote:(A) Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 - Sections 15, 16, 18 - Liability of buyer - Interest on delayed payment - Statutory body for dispute resolution - Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 6, 7, 9, 13)
(B) Recovery of dues - Alternative remedy - When a dispute requires examination of complex factual issues, such as specific dates of supply, acceptance of goods, and the application of compound interest with monthly rests, the specialized body created under the statute is the appropriate forum; writ jurisdiction is not the suitable path for such granular fact-finding. (Paras 9, 12)
Facts of the case:
A supplier sought unpaid dues and interest under a development statute. Despite prior efforts to settle, payment claims remained outstanding. The opposing party contended that an alternate specialized forum for dispute resolution was available, rendering the current legal challenge inappropriate.
Findings of Court:
The court held that while the statute provides for mandatory interest on delayed payments, the procedural determination of legitimate amounts involves factual inquiries that are beyond the scope of a writ court's interference.
Issues: The primary inquiry was whether a writ petition is maintainable for recovering unpaid commercial dues alongside specific interest calculations, or if the parties should be relegated to the specialized statutory body for adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi: Adjudication of technical financial disputes involving the calculation of compound interest with monthly rests and the verification of receipt of goods falls within the domain of the dedicated statutory body, ensuring necessary expertise and procedural accuracy.
Result: Petition disposed of with liberty given to the party to represent a detailed claim for verification and with liberty to access the statutory body if disputes persist.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual context of petitioner's msme claim and prior litigation history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. conflict regarding msme act applicability versus existence of alternate remedy. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. judicial interpretation of interest calculation under section 16 of the msme act. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court mandates factual verification and formal interest calculation before payment adjudication. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Ms. M. Hazarika, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Khan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. P.N. Goswami, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. I. Kalita, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the PHE Department of the Government of Assam and Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned Additional Advocate General appears on behalf of the Finance Department of the Government of Assam.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction upon the respondents to perform their statutory duties and obligations under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short, “the Act of 2006”) and, in consequence thereof, to release the outstanding dues of the petitioner along with interest thereon as per the provisions of the said Act.
3. It is relevant to take note of that the petitioner herein claims to be a small enterprise within the meaning of the Act of 2006. Pursuant to certain work orders issued, the petitioner supplied various UPVC pipes and thereupon claimed the dues. On account of non-payment, the petitioner submitted a representation and as the said representation was not considered, a writ petition being WP(C) No. 2776/2018 was filed before this Court. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.05.2018 disposed of the said writ petition thereby directing the Chief Engineer, PHE, to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 17.01.2018 for payment of the outstanding dues with interest within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. It is the further case of the petitioner that in spite of the said order dated 07.05.2018 in WP(C) No. 2776/2018, no steps were taken for disposal of the representation and making payment to the petitioner. Resultantly, the petitioner filed a contempt petition before this Court, which was registered and numbered as Cont. Cas(C) No. 516/2018. It is the further case of the petitioner that pursuant thereto, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into by and between the petitioner and the PHE Department, Government of Assam, wherein it was duly agreed that an amount of Rs. 5,35,25,305/- would be the final payment towards the dues under the NRDWP account.
4. The record reveals that the said contempt petition was withdrawn by the petitioner in the year 2022 on the ground that the petitioner would not like to pursue the said contempt application in the present form. The records further reveal that pursuant to the said Memorandum of Understanding so entered into by and between the petitioner and the PHE Department, various other work orders were issued in the years 2020 and 2021 for the supply of UPVC pipes and it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner duly made those supplies, however, no payment was made in that regard. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner submitted several representations since the year 2022.
5. It is also relevant to take note of that the PHE Department invited various parties, including the petitioner, for an amicable and equitable resolution to the disputes vide the communication dated 29.05.2024. The record further reveals that on 04.04.2025, the petitioner took up a stand that in view of non-payment of dues, the petitioner had withdrawn itself from the Memorandum of Understanding, which was informed to the Chief Engineer, PHE Department, Government of Assam. Thereupon, the petitioner continued to submit representations, inasmuch as the petitioner submitt
