PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the awards passed by the 1st respondent vide letter in Rc. No.4440/D4/2020 dated 18.09.2020 and letter in RC. No.951/D4/2023 dated 12.04.2023, to and quash the same as illegal and further direct the 1st respondent to rehear and dispose the claims of the petitioner in Appln. No. TN-18-B0025489/S/00001 dated 13.05.2020 and Appln. No. UDYAM-TN-18-0011105/M/00001 dated 08.02.2023 in accordance with law in an expeditious manner within the time frame as fixed by this Honble Court and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

ORDER

The writ petition is filed challenging the award passed by the 1"respondent dated 18.09.2020 and the consequential letter dated 12.04.2023 and to quash the same and consequently direct the 1 respondent to rehear and dispose of the claims of the petitioner in Appln. No. UDYAM-TN-18-011105/M/00001 accordance with law in an expeditious manner. dated 08.02.2023 in accordance with law in an expeditious manner.

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, it is submitted that the petitioner is engaged in the dealership of television services, solar panel installation, and DTH sales, installation, and related services. The petitioner also holds a valid GST Registration Certificate. The petitioner obtained a Udyog Aadhaar Registration Certificate on 29.03.2020 under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) scheme. Subsequently, another Udyog Aadhaar Registration Certificate was obtained on 25.06.2021. The 2nd respondent entered into a Service Agreement with the petitioner for rendering services as a zonal distributor for the sale, installation, and supply of DTH services under the name and style “Independent TV.” The said Service Agreement is a registered agreement dated 05.11.2018.

3. As per the agreement, the petitioner was required to invest approximately Rs.2,00,00,000/-. Considering the margin of profit and future prospects, the petitioner obtained a loan from Bank of Baroda under a scheme applicable to Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) and invested a sum of ?95,00,000/- in the business. However, the DTH services supplied suddenly failed to receive signals, resulting in customer dissatisfaction. Under these circumstances, the petitioner made the present claim before the 1st respondent authority. The 1st respondent, by the impugned order, rejected the claim on the grounds that the petitioner’s activity is not eligible to invoke the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent and secondly, that the respondent company had already approached the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, by virtue of the Udyog Aadhaar MSME certificate dated 29.03.2020 and the subsequent certificate issued by the authorities on 25.06.2021, it is clear that the petitioner’s activity falls within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent.

5. With reference to the second ground, namely that liquidation proceedings are pending, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, though it is true that the matter is pending before the National Company Law Tribunal, there is no bar preventing the 1st respondent authority from entertaining and deciding the claim on merits. It is further submitted that, if the 1st respondent finds merit in the claim and passes an award, the petitioner would attain the status of a secured creditor and would rank higher in the order of priority under the waterfall mechanism as contemplated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Therefore, the petitioner seeks appropriate directions in this regard.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent would submit that, since insolvenc