HI TEX CREATIONS, NO. 16, DURGA NAGAR, PONNIAMANMEDU, CHENNAI - 600 110 BY ITS PROPRIETOR R.MAHESH Vs. MICRO & SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL, COIMBATORE REGION, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES, GOVT. OF INDIA, COIMBATORE.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N.Viswanathan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the First Respondent and Mr. K.Myilsamy, Learned Counsel for the Second Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

(2.) The Second Respondent had made a claim in Case No. M&SEFC/CBER/6/2016 before the First Respondent under Ses. 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MSMED Act' for short), claiming payment of Rs.34,00,000.00 from the Petitioner towards remaining amount due for goods supplied with interest calculated in terms of that Act, in which an order dtd. 21/12/2016 was passed holding that the Petitioner was liable to pay the principal sum of Rs.28,15,000.00 together with compounded interest with monthly rests at three times of the Bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India as stipulated in MSMED Act, 2006 from the appointed due dates respectively till payment, which assailed in this Writ Petition.

(3.) In response to the contentions raised by the Second Respondent that if the Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, he has to only resort to filing of an application under Ses. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the A and C Act' for short) to have it set aside as an arbitral award, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s. Vijeta Construction -vs-M/s. Indus Smelters Ltd. (Order dtd. 23/9/2021 in Civil Appeal No. 5934 of 2021), where after referring to the relevant provisions of the MSMED Act and A and C Act, it has been held that the discretionary powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution could be invoked when the prescribed procedure for conciliation has not taken place before passing the arbitral award in such matters. It has been highlighted that though there is reference in the impugned order to the joint meeting of the Petitioner and the Second Respondent before the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Tiruppur, there is nothing to show that the prescribed procedure for conciliation as required under the MSMED Act had been followed before proceeding to pass the arbitral award, which would vitiate the impugned order in this case.