MICROVISION TECHNOLOGIES Vs. DHULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant seeks review of the judgment of this Court (Coram: V. K. Jadhav) in Writ Petition No.10764/2015. By the said judgment, the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed and the judgment and award dtd. 13/2/2015 passed by Micro, Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC), Nashik Division, Nashik in Petition No.8/2011 (M/s. Microvision Technologies, Nashik v/s Commissioner, Dhule Municipal Corporation, Dhule) was quashed and set aside and the petition filed by the applicant was dismissed

(2.) Heard the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Vijay Thorat i/b Mr. A. S. Bajaj for the applicant and the learned Advocate Mr. Amol Sawant for the respondent.

(3.) The learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submits that, this Court has wrongly interpreted the provisions of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short 'MSMED Act') and has erred in coming to the conclusion that Facilitation Council had no jurisdiction to entertain the arbitration proceedings. In fact, according to him, since the applicant was provisionally registered as a small scale industry under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industries Undertaking Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act of 1993') and since the applicant was permanently registered as a small scale industry on 6/5/2003 under the Act of 1993, and as tender notice was issued in the year 2005, agreement between the parties was executed on 11/10/2005 and the work order was issued on 13/10/2005 prior to the enactment of MSMED Act, only the Act of 1993 is applicable in the present case. He submits that as a result of repeal of the Act of 1993 and Sec. 32 of MSMED Act is enacted, the Facilitation Council has jurisdiction. Sec. 32(2) of MSMED Act, provides that anything done under the repealed Act shall be deemed to have been done or taken under corresponding provisions of MSMED Act. He further submits that the applicant falls in the category of 'supplier' as defined under Sec. 2(f) of the Act of 1993, being a small scale industrial undertaking, holding permanent registration certificate, the applicant is deemed to be continued under Sec. 32 of MSMED Act since the words used in definition clause of MSMED Act are "unless the context otherwise requires". Therefore, according to him, the definition of 'supplier' under Sec. 2(n) of MSMED Act must be read along with Sec. 8 of the said Act. Under Sec. 8, memorandum is discretionary at the behest of an industrial unit, provided it has obtained a registration certificate.