ORDER :

In both these Writ Petitions the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Prohibition to quash the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 before the respondent No.1 vide MSEFC-Case Nos. TS/09/S/RGY/00328 & TS/09/S/RGY/00329, as being barred by limitation as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shilpi Industries Vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 439 and to pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petitions are that the respondent No.2 has filed an application before the respondent No.1 under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006. On issuance of notice to the petitioner herein, the petitioner has filed its counter taking a preliminary objection that the claim petition was barred by limitation and therefore, the respondent No.1 ought not to have entertained the said application. To the said counter affidavit, respondent No.2 has also filed its reply affidavit. The grievance of the petitioner is that without adjudicating on the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner about the applicability of Limitation Act, the respondent No.1 is proceeding with the matter. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the proceedings vide MSEFC-Case Nos.TS/09/S/RGY/00328 & TS/09/S/RGY/ 00329.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the claim petition filed by the respondent No.2, he is seeking payment for the supply of goods during the years 2009 & 2010. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 has kept quite all along and filed the claim petition only in the year 2020 by filing an application under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006. He has further drawn the attention of this Court to the counter filed by the petitioner herein before the MSME Council, wherein at Para-5 of the said counter it was stated that “an objection has been taken that no cause of action has arisen for filing of the present petition and that the alleged cause of action is created and concocted for the purpose of filing the petition and also that the petition is barred by limitation and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed”.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application filed by the petitioner before the respondent No.1 is in the nature of the Suit filed before the Civil Court and the law of limitation which is applicable to the claims before the Civil Court is also applicable to the claims filed before the Council. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 has filed reply affidavit giving the details of the alleged payments due to them and has relied upon the FAQ’s and Answers thereto provided by the respondent No.1 and particularly in Question No.38 wherein it is mentioned that “no limitation is applicable in arbitration by Council, but delay and latches principle is applicable and supplier sleeping over his legal rights cannot get assistance of Council”. He submitted that the respondent No.2 is taking shelter of the said reply to claim that the petition is maintainable and that the law of limitation is not applicable before the Council.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shilpi Industries Vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, 2021 SCC Online SC 439, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the issue and held that the Limitation Act would apply to Arbitration under MSMED Act, 2006 as well. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, sought a Writ of Prohibition or to quash the proceedings before the respondent No.1.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that there was no limitation for raising a dispute or making a reference to the respondent No.1 under the MSMED Act and even as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shilpi Industries (cited supra), the limitation period would be applic