M/S. VAISHNO ENTERPRISES Vs. HAMILTON MEDICAL AG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 201 of 2021 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the Intimation­cum­Notice dtd. 22/10/2020 and Notices dtd. 4/11/2020 and 12/11/2020 issued by Micro and Small Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council (hereinafter referred to as 'the Council '), the original applicant has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) That the appellant is a registered partnership consultant which provides consultancy services to foreign medical equipment companies in the form of liaisoning services with hospitals and government departments and entities for procurement of medical equipment like ventilators. That Respondent No.1 herein is a company registered under the laws of Switzerland, having its office at Bonaduz, Switzerland and is a manufacturer and supplier of critical care ventilation solutions for a variety of patient segments, applications and environments across the world. According to the respondent, it has its own consultants, engaged in India, who facilitate the installation of their equipment and undertake related ancillary work. That the appellant herein which provides consultancy services, approached the respondent­Company and requested to be associated with the Company in implementation of their projects in India. One HLL Infra -Tech Services Limited, a Nodal Agency of the Government of India, floated a tender dtd. 20/8/2018 to purchase/procure 1186 high end ventilators and other medical equipment to be supplied to various hospitals/medical colleges/departments across India. The respondent also participated in the said tender by offering its bid through its authorized local agent, M/s Medelec Health Care Solutions. The tender was awarded in favour of the said Medelec Solutions. That thereafter the appellant and the respondent entered into a Consulting Agreement on 10/2/2020, with a restricted term of six months, agreeing that the appellant herein shall act as a consultant for the respondent - Company. That thereafter the appellant raised various invoices claiming certain amounts. The same were alleged to have been paid by the respondent. That the earlier Consulting Agreement dtd. 10/2/2020 expired on 10/8/2020, the appellant and the respondent entered into a fresh Consulting Agreement on 24/8/2020 for a period of six months. That the appellant herein got registered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as, 'MSME Act') on 28/8/2020. That thereafter the dispute arose between the parties. A legal notice dtd. 9/9/2020 was sent by the appellant calling upon the respondent to pay the amounts covered by Invoice No. 5 dtd. 22/6/2020 and Invoice No. 6 dtd. 7/9/2020 and one another along with damages of Rs.50.00 lakhs. In the said notice, the appellants informed that it was registered under the MSME Act. The respondent terminated the Consulting Agreement dtd. 24/8/2020 vide termination letter dtd. 22/10/2020. That the appellant herein replied to the termination notice vide reply dtd. 16/11/2020. That as the dispute arose between the parties, the appellant herein approached the Council on 22/10/2020 which case was registered as Reference No.1581/MSEFC/2020. The appellant prayed for the following reliefs:

(3.) On 22/10/2020 itself an intimation was sent by the Council to the respondent. That on receipt of the said notice, the respondent addressed a letter to the Chairman of the Council and contended that they are a company that is based in Switzerland and therefore MSME Act shall not be applicable to companies located outside country. It was also stated that the respondent has no office in India more particularly in New Delhi as mentioned in the complaint/notice. On 4/11/2020 the Council sent Form 2 notice calling for statement of defence to the Respondent herein. One another notice dtd. 12/11/2020 was sent by the Council. Thereafter a notice for a conciliation meeting dtd. 23/11/2020 was served upon the respondent and the meeting was scheduled on 28/11/2020. Thereafter the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 21623 of 2020 before the High Court challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid notices. By judgment and order dtd. 20/4/2021, the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition and set aside the notices issued by the Council by observing that the Council has no jurisdiction to resolve the dispute between the parties. That the appellant herein challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Appeal No. 201 of 2020 before the Division Bench. By the impugned judgment and order the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single judge. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is the subject matter of the present appeal.