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)(J&K) 1822

JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT
Ali Muhammad Magrey, J
Union Territory of J and K through Executive Engineer, PHE M and P Division – Appellant
Versus
M/S JTL Infra Limited, Chandigarh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 293/2023 | Reference under S.18 MSMED Act



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Abdul Rashid Malik
For the Respondents: Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai

Judicial review under Article 226 is not maintainable against MSEFC awards without exhausting statutory remedies as per MSMED Act.

Headnote:(A) Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 - Sections 18 and 19 - Writ petition challenging ex parte award passed by MSEFC - Petitioner contended that no opportunity was provided to present defense and award made without jurisdiction - The Court held that the alternate statutory remedy must be exhausted before approaching High Court under Article 226/227. (Paras 4-10)

(B) Jurisdiction - It was upheld by the Court that the MSEFC possesses authority to adjudicate disputes under MSMED Act - The jurisdiction of the Council in arbitration and conciliation matters was affirmed, emphasizing no entertainability of petitions under Article 226/227 without pre-deposit under S.19 - Resultant necessity for complying with statutory requirements was highlighted. (Paras 12-22)

Facts of the case:
The dispute arose regarding delays in payment for supplies as per the contract, leading to an award issued in favor of the claimant by MSEFC for recovery of substantial amounts along with interest on delayed payments.

Findings of Court:
The High Court reaffirmed that the petitioner must follow the prescribed legal remedies rather than immediately seek intervention via writ petitions, thus upholding the decision of the MSEFC.

Issues: The main issues involved the legitimacy of the award and the jurisdiction of the MSEFC in adjudicating claimed dues.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that the petitioner's challenge to the MSEFC's award lacked basis without observing statutory provisions for alternate remedies.

Result: Petition dismissed with liberty granted to pursue statutory provisions.

Table of Content
1. dispute regarding payment for supplies. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. delay in fulfilling contract obligations. (Para 3 , 6)
3. msefc's jurisdiction and role in disputes. (Para 5 , 8 , 10)
4. necessity of adhering to statutory remedies. (Para 7 , 12 , 15)
5. judicial review constraints regarding council awards. (Para 9 , 11 , 19)

1. Petitioner - Union Territory of J and K through Executive Engineer, PHE M and P Division, has assailed the award / order dated 01.06.2023, passed by Chairman, Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council [hereinafter be referred as "MSEFC"], SAS Nagar Punjab, in terms of which respondent No. 1 has been held entitled to the payment of Rs. 2,75,65, 355.00/- as principal amount along with interest as delayed amount up to 31.05.2023.

2. Factual Matrix
The Jal Shakti Department invited tenders for bidding for supply of ISI marked GMS tubes of assorted sizes, ranging from 15 MM to 100 MM, 125MM and 150 MM from registered / GeM approved manufacturers vide e - NIT No. PHE / M and P / 01 of 2018-19 / e - tender dated 06-04-2018. Out of six bidders, the firm M/S JTL Infra Limited, Chandigarh was declared lowest for all the items of the advertised diameters in both light and medium class categories as such three supply orders were issued in favour of the claimant firm. The material from the firm i.e., respondent No.1 was received as and when supplied as per the supply orders and payments were made to the firm from time to time as per the payment clauses of the terms and conditions of the E - NIT.

3. It is stated that the delay of finalization / closure of the contract for supply of GMS Tubes from respondent No. 1 to the Department of Jal Shakti had occurred, owing the delay in supplies from the Firm itself, which consequently impeded the settlement of delay.

4. It is stated that once the settlement of delay was confirmed, firm and final rates were established and after imposition of penalty clause net amount payable to the firm and the payment was made as per the terms and conditions laid in E - NIT. Respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition / reference under S.18 of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 for recovery of Rs. 19,38,92,339/-, which includes Rs. 16,89,79,714.26/- as principal amount and Rs. 2,49,12,624.74/- as interest upto 31.12.2019, before the Punjab Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council at S.A.S Nagar Mohali.

5. The Chairman Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, SAS Nagar passed award dated 01.06.2023, the operative portion of which is reproduced as under:
"Therefore in view of the findings above, the claimant is held entitled to the payment of Rs. 2,75,65.355.00/- as principal along with interest as delayed payment upto 31.05.2023. The reference of the claimant is accepted not only for the pending principal amount as stated above, but also with interest there upon as per provisions of S.16 of MSMED Act, 2006 and an award of pending principal amount of Rs. 2,75,65,355.00/- along with interest of Rs. 8,77,32,279.00/- upto 20.04.2023 (Total amounting to Rs. 11,52,97,635.00/-) as per Calculation Sheet attached as Annexure A - 1 is hereby passed in favour of the claimant and against the respondent, who is liable to pay the same to claimant. The respondent shall be further liable to pay future interest on delayed payments as per provision of the MSMED Act to the claimant on Awarded amount from 01.06.2023 till its realization".

6. Petitioner has challenged the impugned award on the ground that the same has been passed in a very mechanical way, and in a slip shod manner without providing any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The MSE Facilitation Council has exceeded jurisdiction by taking cognizance of the reference made by respondent company on account of interest on delayed payment of goods by the petitioner as the said agreement executed between the parties does not have any clause pertaining to the payment of interest on delayed payment an








































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