VAISHNO ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD Vs. HAMILTON MEDICAL AG, SWITZERLAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant (respondent No.2 in W.P.No.21623 of 2020) has challenged the judgment dtd. 20/4/2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner for quashing the Intimation-cum-Notice dtd. 22/10/2020 and Notices dtd. 4/11/2020 and 12/11/2020, issued by the respondent No.2/Micro and Small Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council (in short, 'Council'), on an application moved by the appellant before the Council to act as an Arbitrator on a claim amount of Rs.8,21,68,340.00, raised on the respondent No.1/writ petitioner.

(2.) The brief relevant facts of the case as narrated in the impugned judgment are extracted herein below:-

(3.) Aggrieved by the Intimation-cum-notice dtd. 22/10/2020 and the notices dtd. 4/11/2020 and 12/11/2020, issued by the respondent No.2/Council, the respondent No.1 filed a writ petition pleading inter alia that the appellant could not have invoked the provisions of Sec. 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (in short, 'MSME Act') and approached the respondent No.2/Council by submitting a reference for claiming amounts due and payable to it by the respondent No.1 as the Council does not have the jurisdiction to entertain any such dispute. In other words, the respondent No.1 took a plea that it is a company registered in Switzerland and not located in India and therefore, the appellant did not have the option of filing a claim petition against it, as contemplated in Sec. 18(4) of the MSME Act. To give a false impression that the respondent No.1 is located in India, the appellant had deliberately furnished a wrong address of the respondent No.1 by mentioning the same as "M-73 'M' Block Main Market, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi-110048" and "Via Crush 87402 Bonaduz CH South Delhi", both of which are incorrect. Rule 6 (v) of the G.O.Ms.No.39, dtd. 30/6/2017 was cited to urge that the respondent No.2/Council was empowered to examine the reference at the preliminary stage to satisfy itself in respect of the fee and/or competence of the concerned MSME Unit to file a reference and if dissatisfied, return the same. However, in the instant case, though the respondent No.1 had raised a specific objection on jurisdiction in its reply dtd. 26/10/2020, the respondent No.2/Council did not exercise the said power and blindly proceeded to entertain the reference made by the appellant. Rule 9(1) of the G.O.Ms.No.39, dtd. 30/6/2017 was cited to urge that the respondent No.2/Council was under an obligation to rule on the aspect of jurisdiction before entertaining the claim of the appellant, which it had failed to do. Instead, the impugned notice dtd. 4/11/2020 was issued by the respondent No.2/Council in a mechanical manner, calling upon the respondent No.1 to furnish its Statement of Defence.