ORDER :

Prayer : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 11.06.2021 passed in MSEFC/CR/230/2019 on the file of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Chennai Region.

The present petition is filed against the impugned award dated 11.06.2021 passed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSE) Facilitation Council, Chennai Region in MSEFC/CR/230/2019. It is essential to go into the facts of the case before taking a decision on the validity of the said award by the MSE Facilitation Council.

2. In brief the facts are as follows:

The respondent company is engaged in the business of supply and installation of dorma fittings and registered as a MSME under the MSMED Act, 2006 possessing Udyog Aadhaar No. TN02D0154606. They had supplied dorma fittings to the petitioner company vide two invoices DSI-1035 and DSI-336 dated 13.11.2013 for which the payment of Rs.2,53,332/- was not forthcoming. The respondent company appealed to the MSE Facilitation Council for early settlement of the outstanding dues on 25.09.2019. The council after hearing the counsels of both the parties on different dates decided that the respondent company was entitled to recover the principal amount of Rs.2,53,332/- along with the interest at the rate of three times the bank rate as stipulated in Sections 15 & 16 of MSMED Act, 2006 from the date of invoice till the date of settlement. This award was dated 11.06.2021. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition challenging the award.

3. Heard Mr.K.Sharath Chandran & Mr.T.M.Mano, learned counsels appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr.B.Leelesh Sundaram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the present revision petitioner contended that the impugned award dated 11.06.2021 was in itself null and void as the respondent company was not a registered MSME unit as on the date of the invoices i.e. 13.11.2013 and was registered under MSMED Act, 2006 only on 12.08.2019 and therefore the MSE Facilitation Council had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. Secondly, it was pointed out that the aspect of limitation makes the claim time barred. A claim petition made in 2019 for dues in 2013 is clearly time barred and the MSE Facilitation Council was not empowered to defy Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that registration of the unit under Section 8 of MSMED Act, 2006 was not mandatory and there are clear rulings on the same. He also emphasized that once the petitioner's company subjected itself to MSE Facilitation Council's proceeding the aspect of maintainability has no relevance and hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. He relied on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in M/s.Ramky Infrastructure Private Vs. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council & Another, wherein it was held that the MSMED Act, 2006 is a beneficial legislation and therefore cannot be used against the MSME Supplier Registration of the unit was also only optional and not compulsory as stipulated in the Act.

6. Analysing the arguments putforth in the claim petition, it can be deciphered that the two invoices remained unpaid for long despite several reminders and therefore, the respondent company had approached the council for early settlement of the dues.

7. This revision petition rests on two important aspects one is the maintainability and the other is the limitation. Let us first deal with the maintainability issue. Whether registration of the supplier as a MSME unit under Section 8 of the MSMED Act, 2006 is mandatory to seek relief under the Act. In this context the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in "Vaishno Enterprises Vs Hamilton Medical AG and Another" reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 355 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that

"15.It is not in dispute that the contract/agreement between the ap