Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S. Nitesh Estates Ltd. vs Micro And Small Enterprises ... on 12 August, 2022
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2022
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 26682 of 2018)
M/S. NITESH ESTATES LTD. ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL
OF HARYANA & ORS. ….RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
Leave granted.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 07.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 21088/2018, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellant herein in which the appellant challenged notice dated 13.03.2018 and order dated 07.06.2018 of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council of Haryana/respondent no.1 herein (hereinafter referred to as `the Council’) and notice dated 24.07.2018 issued by the Arbitrator appointed by the Council, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
2. It is the case on behalf of the appellant that at the time when brokerage agreement was entered into between the appellant Signature Not Verified and respondent no.2, respondent no.2 was not Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.08.18 16:26:12 IST Reason: registered as micro enterprise under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred contd..
- 2 -
to as `MSMED Act’) and, therefore the initiation of proceedings by respondent no.2 under the MSMED Act was bad in law. On the other hand, it is the case on behalf of respondent no.2 that subsequently in the year 2016, respondent no.2 got the registration under the MSMED Act retrospectively w.e.f. 2006 and therefore, the proceedings initiated by the respondent under the MSMED Act were maintainable. It is also the case on behalf of respondent no.2 that when respondent no.2 filed proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as `NCLT’), the appellant agreed that let the proceedings under the MSMED Act be proceeded further.
3. On the order passed by the NCLT, it is the case on behalf of the appellant that there was no question of any concession to be given by the appellant that the proceedings before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council may go on as the very initiation of the proceedings under the MSMED ACT were under challenge before the High Court by way of present writ petition.
4. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether the proceedings initiated by respondent no.2 under MSMED Act would be maintainable and/or permissible as at the time of entering into the borkerage agreement, respondent no.2 was not registered as micro enterprise. The issue involved is squarely contd..
- 3 -
covered against the respondents in view of the decision of this Court in Silpi Industries Etc. Vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Another 2021 SCC OnLine SC 439 as well as the subsequent decision of this Court in Vaishno Enterprises Vs. Hamilton Medical AG and Another 2022 SCC OnLine SC 355, taking the view that for initiation of proceedings under the MSMED Act, the registration of the complainant/application as micro enterprise shall be must. The subsequent registration of respondent no.2 with retrospective effect from 10 years back will not be of any assistance and/or help to respondent no.2.
5. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the notices issued by the Council and the notice issued by the Arbitrator, appointed by the Council, are hereby quashed and set aside. However, it will be open for respondent no.2 to take recourse to law, may be to revive the proceedings before NCLT, if permissible under the law and as and when such proceedings are initiated, the same be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits.
The present Appeal is accordingly allowed.
………………………………………J. [M.R. SHAH] ……………………………………J. [B.V. NAGARATHNA] NEW DELHI AUGUST 12, 2022 ITEM NO.34 COURT NO.9 SECTION IV-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26682/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-09-2018 in CWP No. 21088/2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh) M/S. NITESH ESTATES LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 96615/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 12-08-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA For Petitioner(s) Ms. Hari Priya Padmana Bhan, Adv.
Mr. Abir Phukan, Adv.
Mr. Surya Prakash, Adv.
Ms. Shivani Vij, Adv.
M/S. Kmnp Law, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
(NEETU SACHDEVA) (NISHA TRIPATHI)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(signed order is placed on the file)