UCAL FUEL SYSTEMS LIMITED Vs. MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL INDUSTRIES COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the summons issued by the first respondent for hearing dated 20.11.2018 as one of without jurisdiction, the above Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred.

(2.) The petitioner is a buyer in terms of Section 2(d) of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter called "the Act"). The second respondent supplied goods to the petitioner, as such it falls within the definition "Supplier" under Section 2(n) of the Act. The crucial dispute involved in this case is as to whether the second respondent falls within the definition of Section 2(n) and about maintainability, scope and jurisdiction of reference before the Council constituted as per Section 20 of the Act.

(3.) According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petition filed by the second respondent before the first respondent "Council" is not maintainable for the reason that the second respondent was not a registered entrepreneur as per the Act on the date of agreement between them and is bound by the conditions of the contract entered between the parties. The Act will apply only in respect of the agreements entered between the parties after the registration and the Council will have jurisdiction only for the contracts entered between the parties. As such, the second respondent cannot be construed as a "Supplier". Therefore, the Council has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. Apart from that, the claim is barred by limitation, which issue can be decided only by a competent Civil Court or through arbitration. The Scheme of the Act is unilateral and confers blanket power on the Council safeguarding the interest of the "supplier" alone and leaves the buyer unarmed without any protection. Insofar as it does not provide any safeguard and protection to the buyers even to defend the illegal claims, it is arbitrary and ultra vires and liable to be struck down. In support of his contention, he would rely on the judgment of this Court in PRODIGY HYDRO POWER PVT. LTD., VS. N.S.THIRUVAMBALAM [OP NO.617 OF 2017 DECIDED ON 06.09.2017].