JUDGMENT

Dated this the 9th day of March 2022 S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.

This appeal is filed by the appellant/writ petitioner against the judgment dated 2.3.2022 in W.P.(C)No.889/2022 by which, a learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the same is not maintainable in view of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.24643 of 2021 dated 23.12.2021. Writ Petition 889/2022 was filed challenging the order passed by the respondent No.1/Director of Industries and Commerce Haryana cum Chairman, Haryana MSEMSC under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Act, 2006 (for short ‘MSME Act’).

2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:

The appellant is a sub-contractor of M/s Corrtech International Private Limited. M/s Corrtech International Private Limited has entered into an agreement with M/s. GIAL (INDIA) Ltd. for RLNG Gas Pipeline Project. The appellant and the 3rd respondent/M/S Pravsha Projects Private Limited had entered into an agreement dated 25.3.2018 for project management service in relation to the sub contract that the appellant had entered into with M/s Corrtech International Private Limited for laying of RLNG Gas Pipeline Project under KKBMPL Project for short segments.

3. According to the appellant, the 3rd respondent/M/S Pravsha Projects Private Limited has failed to perform its part of the contract and deviated from the same, resulting in huge loss to the appellant. Hence, there arose a dispute between the appellant and the 3rd respondent/M/S Pravsha Projects Private Limited.

4. As per the agreement, if a dispute, claim or controversy arises out of or in connection with the agreement and is not settled amicably between the parties within 30 days of a written notification of the dispute by any of the party to other party of the agreement, such disputed matter shall be then settled in arbitration.

5. According to the appellant, by invoking the arbitration clause in the agreement, the appellant has issued a notice dated 20.8.2020 and 11.11.2020 to the 3rd respondent, pointing out the above facts and demanded payment of an interim amount of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores).

6. It is the further case of the appellant that the 3rd respondent has not settled the same. But, the 3rd respondent sent a reply denying the allegation and also stated that they have already filed a case before the MSME council at Haryana and hence, not in a position to accept the 'Notice of Dispute' to commence a separate parallel proceedings of Arbitration in Kerala.

7. Meanwhile, the appellant has initiated AR 61/2021 before this Court for appointment of an arbitrator. The 3rd respondent on the other hand, approached the facilitation Center by filing two applications by Exts.P8 and P9 claiming that Exts.P6 and P7 invoices issued for the services rendered were not paid by the appellant.

8. According to the appellant, they dispute the claim in Exts.P8 and P9 as the service were not rendered and accepted by the appellant. It is the further case of the appellant that the respondent No.1, without considering and also without complying the principles of natural justice and further without considering the contentions raised by the appellant in Exts.P17 and P18, proceeded with the matter.

9. In the above circumstances, the appellant approached this Court by filing W.P.(C.) No.24643/2021. This Court disposed the writ petition, as per Ext.P21 judgment. The directions contained in Ext.P21 judgment, dated 23rd December 2021 in W.P.(C)No.24643 of 2021, reads thus:

“Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the following manner:

1. The 1 st respondent is directed to issue a copy of the order passed under Section 18(3) of the the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act referring the issue for arbitration, to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

2. The petitioner is free to raise the contention based on his application under Sec