Back
1
WP No.369/2020
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
INDORE BENCH
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Subodh Abhyankar
Writ Petition No.369/2020
(Jabalpur Treasure Island Pvt. Ltd. & others v. State of Madhya Pradesh & others)
1
Case No.
Writ Petition No.369/2020
2
Parties Name
Jabalpur Treasure Island Pvt. Ltd. & others
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
3
Date of Order
30th of December, 2021
4
Bench constituted of
Hon'ble Justice
Single Bench
Hon'ble Shri Justice Subodh Abhyankar
5
Order passed by
Hon'ble Shri Justice Subodh Abhyankar
6
Whether approved for
reporting
Yes
7
Name of counsel for the
parties
Shri Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Sameer Verma, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondents No.1, 4 and 5 / State of Madhya
Pradesh.
Shri Yogesh Bhatnagar, learned counsel for
respondent No.3 / Sanfield India Limited.
8
Law laid down
1. A harmonious reading of sub-section (2), (3)
and (4) of S.18 of MSMED Act, 2006 clearly
reveals that even if the Facilitation council has
acted as a Conciliator, it can still act as an
Arbitrator as provided u/s.18(4) of MSMED Act,
2006.
2. Once a notice is served on a party under s.18 of
the MSME Act, it would hold good for
Conciliation proceedings as also the Arbitration
proceedings to be taken up by the Facilitation
Council, after the Conciliation proceedings have
failed and no separate notice is required to be
served by the Council for initiation of Arbitration
proceedings.
9
Judgments relied upon
1. M/s. Cummins Technologies India Private
Limited v.
Micro and Small Enterprises
Facilitation Council and Others, (2020) 143
ALR 71;
2
WP No.369/2020
2. Best Towers Private Limited v. Reliance
Communications Limited, (2019) AIR (Patna)
85;
3. Bhaven Construction through Authorized
Signatory Premjibhai K. Shah v. Executive
Engineer Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam
Limited and another, (2021) 1 SCALE 327; and
4. Goodyear India Limited vs. Norton Intech
Rubbers (P) Ltd. and Ors., (2012) 6 SCC 345.
10
Significant paragraph
14, 16, 17, 18 & 20
Vishal Baheti,Advocate General
(Case was heard on 30.11.2021)
Post for
30.12.2021
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
rcp
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur
Bench at Indore
(Jabalpur Treasure Island Pvt. Ltd.
Office No.68, 2nd Floor, Juhu Supreme Shopping Centre,
Gulmohar Cross Road No.9, Juhu, Mumbai 400 049 (M.S)
Abhitap Kumar Jain s/o Shri Santosh Kumar Jain,
Age 47 years, Occupation - Service, R/o 9-A, Brajeshwari Main,
Bangali Squire, Indore - 452 001 (MP)
Narayan Khandelwal s/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Khandelwal
Age 50 years, Occupation - Service,
R/o 1303, Scheme No.114,
Part-I, Indore - 452 001 (MP)
Yogesh Goswami s/o Late Shri R.M. Goswami,
Age - 53 years, Occupation - Service,
R/o - 201, Vaibhav Apartment, Scheme No.54,
Amitesh Nagar, Indore - 452 012 (MP)
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh
Through Principal Secretary,
Department of Micro Small & Medium Enterprises,
Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (MP)
Madhya Pradesh Micro & Small Industry Facilitation Council,
Address - Industrial Secretariat, Vindhyachal Bhawan, Bhopal
Sanfield India Limited Through Director,
Mahesh Rajwani s/o Shri Mangdumal Rajwani,
Age 61 years, Occupation - Business,
Address - 31-A, D, Sector,
Industrial Area, Govindpura, Bhopal (MP)
The Collector, Indore (MP)
The Tahsildar Tahsil Kanadia,
District Indore MP)
* * * * *
Shri Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Sameer Verma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents No.1, 4 and 5 /
State of Madhya Pradesh.
Shri Yogesh Bhatnagar, learned counsel for respondent No.3 / Sanfield
India Limited.
* * * * *
O R D E R
(Passed on this 30th day of December, 2021)
Heard on IA No.10005/2021, an application on behalf of the
respondent No.3 (Sanfield India Limited) for dismissal of the instant
writ petition for want of jurisdiction and also on availability of
efficacious alternative remedy.
2.
In brief, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the
petitioner and respondent No.3 entered into a business transactions
with effect from 08.02.2011, regarding supply of construction
material. Subsequently, a dispute arose between the parties and
respondent No.3 filed an application under Section 18 of the Micro
Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (herein after
referred to as “the Act”) for adjudication of the dispute (vide claim
statement dated 17.04.2015 Annexure P/5) before the Madhya
Pradesh Micro & Small Industry Facilitation Council, Bhopal (MP),
respondent No.2 (herein after referred to as “the Facilitation
Council”).
3.
In the aforesaid proceedings, the Facilitation Council vide its
award dated 27.12.2017 (Annexure P/7) directed the petitioners to
pay a sum of Rs.33,78,745/- (rupees thirty three lakh seventy eight
thousand seven hundred forty five only) along with penal interest of
Rs.23,07,729 (rupees twenty three lakh seven thousand seven
hundred twenty nine only) as on 15.04.2015, as well as additional
interest till the payment is made.
4.
The said award dated 27.12.2017 is assailed before this Court
on the ground that the Facilitation Council, although entered into
conciliation proceedings, as provided under Section 18 of the Act,
failed to give further notice to the petitioners, after coming to a
conclusion that the conciliation proceedings have failed and as per
the petitioners, immediately after holding that the conciliation
proceedings have failed, the Facilitation Council decided to conclude
the proceedings on the same day holding that the matter can be
decided on its merits; and passed the final award.
5.
The aforesaid interlocutory application IA No.10005/2021, has
been filed by the respondent No.3 on the ground that against an
award passed under Section 18 (3) of the Act, the remedy under
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Concilliation Act, 1996 is available
which is to be filed before the appropriate District Court of
competent jurisdiction, along with 75% of the awarded amount, as a
precondition and only to circumvent the aforesaid precondition of
depositing the 75% of the awarded amount, this petiti
