ODISHA SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION Vs. MICRO SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES INDUSTRIAL FACILITATION COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, proceeding under challenge is the proceeding before opposite party no.1, Council. He submits, purported claims of opposite party no.2 arise in respect of agreement dtd. 16/12/2013. He relies on two clauses in the agreement, clauses 5 and 14. The clauses are reproduced below:-

(2.) He submits, it will appear in clause 5 of the agreement that his client is not buyer. Furthermore, there is arbitration agreement between the parties and further agreement that the Court of Cuttack, here in Odisha, has jurisdiction for purpose of disputes arisen under the agreement.

(3.) Ms. Maharana, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.2. She submits, supplies were made under the agreement. Out of substantial amount, approximately Rs.50,00,000.00 (rupees fifty lakhs) is still to be paid by petitioner. Her client is supplier situate within territorial limits, over which opposite party no.1 exercises jurisdiction. Sub-Sec. (4) in Sec. 18, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, allows her client to file before the Council in Mumbai, against a buyer anywhere in India. It has done so.