SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 4458

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
M/S SAGAR MINING AND METAL INDUSTRIES PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MUNNA BEHERA – Appellant
Versus
M/S SHIVA MINERALS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR NAMELY UJJWAL KUMAR SINGH – Respondent
LPA 62 / 2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

L.P.A. No. 62 of 2025

----

M/s Sagar Mining and Metal Industries Private Limited, through its Director Munna Behera, aged about 55 years, son of Late Kritan Behera, having its Office at-State Bank Road, Near St. Teresa School, P.O. & P.S. Joda, District

Keonjhar-State-Odisha.

… … Appellant/Respondent No.1

Versus

1. M/s. Shiva Minerals, having its office at D-19, Danish Apartment, Dhatkidih, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum, State-Jharkhand, through its proprietor, namely, Ujjwal Kumar Singh, aged about 40 years, son of Late V.N. Singh, resident of at D-19, Danish Apartment, Dhatkidih, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S.

Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, State- Jharkhand.

... ... .... Respondents/Petitioner

2. Office of the Director of Industries, Odisha, through its Director-cum-Chairman, Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Odisha, having its office at Killa Maidan, Buxi Bazar, Cuttack, P.O. & P.S. Cuttack, District

Cuttack-753001 (Odisha).

...Respondents/Respondent No. 2

-------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

------

For the Appellant : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate

Mr. Kaustav Roy, Advocate

For the Respondents : Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, Advocate

--------

Order No. 06/Dated: 10th December, 2025

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer:

1. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, has been directed against order/judgment dated 18.12.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 5099 of 2023 by which the writ petition filed by the respondent no. 1/petitioner has been allowed by quashing and setting aside the order/award dated 09.08.2023 passed by respondent no. 2 in MSMEFC Case No. 60 of 2022, granting liberty to the appellant to take alternative measures for redressal of his grievance before the appropriate forum.

Factual Aspect:

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, reads as under:

3. The appellant- Sagar Mining and Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. filed a reference under Section 18 of ‘The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘MSME Act’ for short) before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Odisha (hereinafter referred to as ‘MSME Council’ and/or ‘Facilitation Council’) which was registered as M.S.M.E.F.C. Case No. 60 of 2022.

4. The appellant claims itself to be a small-scale enterprises and a ‘supplier’ within the meaning of Section

2(n) of the MSME Act and claimed that it is registered under the said Act w.e.f. 19.06.2019. It is contended that the appellant is having technical expertise and capability to handle execution of contracts of mining and quarrying and a work order dated 07.11.2015 was issued to it by the respondent no. 1-writ petitioner for installation of fully automated crushing plant and screening unit in the plant premises of Petitioner located at Barabhumri in the State of Jharkhand.

5. It has been further stated by the appellant that an agreement was executed with the respondent no. 1 [writ petitioner] on 1st July, 2016 for transfer of right to use the machinery of the concerned respondent and, in furtherance to the said agreement, concerned respondent gave on rent the aforesaid machinery for a period of 4 years at a consideration of Rs. 12,50,000/- per month.

6. It was further contended that a tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (for short ‘MoU’) was entered on 10.02.2016 between the Claimant-Sagar Mining, the appellant and Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd., the respondent- 1-M/s Shiva Minerals [writ petitioner] and one M/s Steel Rerollers.

7. It was stated that under the aforesaid MoU, Claimant- appellant was responsible for creating infrastructure for mining in the leasehold area allotted by the Government of Jharkhand and the respondent no. 1 was responsible for setting up of the processing plant and the third-party M/s Steel Re-rollers was responsible for infusing funds for the venture;

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top