The Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council must adjudicate jurisdiction along with the actual claims filed against it.

ORDER:

Heard Sri Sudhakar Reddy Challa, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce appearing for 2^nd respondent.

2. According to the petitioner, 3^rd respondent has filed an application before 1^st respondent, Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (for short ‘Council’) claiming an amount of Rs.2,16,70,000/- from the petitioner herein towards expenses on various heads, and the said application is not maintainable. Therefore, it has filed a preliminary objection, dated 02.01.2025 before 1^st respondent Council stating that 1^st respondent Council has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by 3^rd respondent. Even then, 1^st respondent is not deciding the said objection. Challenging the said action of

1^st respondent, petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that 1^st respondent has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the application filed by 3^rd respondent and the same is not maintainable.

Referring to Sections 15 to 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short ‘MSME Act’), learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that 1^st respondent has to consider the said provisions and decide the preliminary objection filed by the petitioner with regard to the jurisdiction of 1^st respondent Council. He would further contend that petitioner has issued Letter of Intent in favour of 3^rd respondent and the same was terminated thereafter. Therefore, 3^rd respondent filed aforesaid application before 1^st respondent with regard to the recovery of payment. The same will not come within the purview of the provisions of the MSME Act. Therefore, raising the said grounds, the petitioner has filed aforesaid preliminary objection before 1^st respondent on 02.01.2025. However, 1^st respondent is not considering the same.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce, on instructions, would submit that 1^st respondent has no power to decide the jurisdictional issue as preliminary issue. 1^st respondent will consider the said objection raised by petitioner along with the claim filed by 3^rd respondent.

5. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is relevant to note that Section 15 of the MSME Act deals with liability of buyer to make payment, Section 16 deals with date from which and rate at which interest is payable and Section 17 deals with recovery of amount due. It says, for any goods supplied or services rendered by the supplier, the buyer shall be liable to pay the amount with interest thereon as provided under Section 16 of the MSME Act. Thus, claiming the services rendered by the supplier, a party can file an application before the MSME Council. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that it has issued only Letter of Intent in favour of 3^rd respondent and the same was terminated and the claim filed by 3^rd respondent before 1^st respondent is not maintainable can’t be accepted.

6. Perusal of the application filed by 3^rd respondent before 1^st respondent would reveal that it has rendered services to the petitioner herein. Therefore, 1^st respondent cannot decide the jurisdictional issue as a preliminary issue and the petitioner has to raise the said issue along with other issues and 1^st respondent will decide the same along with the claim filed by

3^rd respondent.

7. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition.