IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 13741 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

GUJARAT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD BLOCK NO.18, 8^TH FLOOR, UDYOG BHAVAN, SECTOR-11 GANDHINAGAR-382010, GUJARAT REP. BY MR. JWALESH ZAVERI, SENIOR MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION).

…PETITIONER (BY SMT. MANASI KUMAR, ADV.)

AND:

1. INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (KARNATAKA) LTD., 9/7, KCN BHAVAN, Digitally signed by YAMUNA BAI ROAD, NANJUNDACHARI MADHAVANAGAR EXTENSION Location: H IGH COURT OF OFF RACE COURSE ROAD, KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY A COMPANY AS PER COMPANIES ACT 2013.

2. MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL, BENGALURU DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE NO. 49, FIRST FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR (MSME), INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT CONSTITUTED UNDER MSME ACT, 2006.

…RESPONDENTS (BY DR. M SUNIL SASTRY, ADV. FOR R1 SRI MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R2)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16/03/2023 STYLED AS AN AWARD PASSED BY R-2 UNDER THE MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2006 IN CASE NO.119 OF 2021 FILED BY R-1 (ANNEXURE-A) NO.MSEFC/BNG/I DECK.119/AWARD/2021-22/22-23.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. In this petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 16.03.2023, an award passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure-A).

3. It is submitted by Smt.Manasi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the agreement between the parties as per Annexure-B dated

14.08.2018 and the said agreement was terminated as per the letter dated 16.10.2020 (Annexure-C). Further, respondent No.1 herein has registered with the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises as per Annexure-G on 15.12.2020, subsequent to the termination of the agreement. Therefore, it is contended that, the respondent No.1 herein has no jurisdiction to approach the Tribunal/Council, as per the resolution of dispute at Annexure-A to the petition. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S.VAISHNO ENTERPRISES v/s HAMILTON MEDICAL AG & ANOTHER reported in (2022) 1 SCR 771 and in the case of NITESH ESTATES LTD. v/s MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL OF HARYANA AND OTHERS reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1198 and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court stating that Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Bangalore has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 reiterates the averments made in the statement of objections and contended that the petitioner is having efficacious remedy to approach the Competent Tribunal and accordingly, sought for dismissal of writ petition.

5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute as to the agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.1 on 14.08.2018 (Annexure-B) wherein the petitioner had addressed a letter dated 16.10.2020 (Annexure-C), rescinding the contract with respondent No.1 herein. It is also forthcoming from Annexure-G that the respondent No.1 herein has secured registration on 15.12.2020 with the Competent Authority, which is subsequent to the execution of the agreement at Annexure-B to the writ petition.

6. In this regard, it is relevant to mention here the declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S.VAISHNO ENTERPRISES (supra) at paragraphs 8 and 8.1 which reads as under:

“8. The short question which is posed for considerat