Karnataka High Court
N R Bhadrachalam vs The Managing Director on 5 September, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 633
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.5369/2011 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
N.R.BHADRACHALAM,
PROPRIETOR,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
M/S. QUALITY UTILITY ARTICLES,
NO.3362, 13TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
SHASTRINAGAR, NEW K.R.ROAD,
BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE-560028.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GAJENDRA S, ADV. ALONG WITH
SRI. V S HEGDE, ADV.)
AND
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S KARNATAKA LEATHER INDUSTRIES
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (LIDKAR)
NO.17/5, OBLONG BLOCK, 2ND FLOOR
UNITY BUILDINGS, J.C. ROAD
BANGALORE-560 002.
2. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA
BANGALORE- 560 001.
-2-
3. THE KARNATAKA MICRO AND SMALL
ENTEREPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL OF
KARNATAKA, (CHAIRMAN)
NO. 49, 2ND FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.M.MURALIDHAR, ADV. FOR
SRI. SREERANGA ASSOCIATES, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI. R.B. SATYANARAYANA SINGH, AGA FOR R2,
R3 IS SERVED.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE & QUASH THE ORDER PASSED IN CASE NO.11/2008
DATED 16.8.2010 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, ANNEXED AS
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the 1st respondent-Karnataka Leather Industries Development Corporation limited (LIDKAR) for payment of certain amounts, which according to the petitioner is interest on delayed payment, due from the 1st respondent.-3-
2. The petitioner is a supplier of leather goods. The petitioner claims that the 1st respondent purchased leather goods from the petitioner which is a small scale industry. The petitioner submits that the transaction between the LIDKAR and suppliers who are Small Scale Industry (SSI) units are governed under 'Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development' Act, 2006 ('Act, 2006' for short).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the contract, LIDKAR purchases the products from SSI units on credit basis and makes payments within 90 days from the date of supply of finished goods. It is submitted that LIDKAR has defaulted in paying the balance 25% of the amount due and has been making delayed payment over and beyond the period of 90 days. In this regard, the petitioner seems to have made several representations to the 1st respondent calling upon the 1st respondent to pay the balance due and interest on delayed payments. Since, the 1st respondent failed to pay the -4- balance and accrued interest on delayed payment, the petitioner approached the Karnataka Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council at Bengaluru. The Council registered the case of the petitioner as Case No.11/2008 under 'Act, 2006'.
4. During the course of the proceedings, it is seen that the Council called upon the parties to file a joint statement, inter-alia regarding payment of interest and 25% discount amount given by the Karnataka Small Industries Marketing Corporation Limited (KSIMC) to LIDKAR within a period of 21 days. Thereafter, the Council has passed an award. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the LIDKAR failed to pay the petitioner such balance amount and interest on delayed payments, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking direction to the 1st respondent herein.
5. Sri. H.M.Muralidhar, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the statement of objections have been filed on behalf of the 1st -5- respondent, denying the claim made by the petitioner herein. Learned counsel points out to Annexure-A, which is the Award passed by the Council in case No.11/2008. Learned counsel submits that during the course of the proceedings before the Council, on 08.05.2009 direction was issued to the 1st respondent by the Council and subsequently all the material evidence were placed before the Council. The Council, having been satisfied that the 1st respondent had made all payments and was not due to the petitioner in any manner, proceeded to dismiss the case.
6. Learned counsel points out to paragraphs No.14.3 and 15.3 of the award at Annexure-A. The contents of said paragraphs are as under:
"14.3 The respondent has settled the legitimate claim of petitioner by paying dues payable. This was also a settlement following the court case. These payments (75% of KSIMC & 25% LIDKAR) have been made pursuant to a litigation in the court and the matters rests there. - - -
15.3 After due consideration of all the documents submitted by the petitioner and -6- respondent, and after hearing the pleadings of the parties, the MSEFC concludes that the respondent corporation has no outstanding amount to be payable to the petitioner, since they have cleared all the pending bills "
7. On going through the material on record and having considered the submissions of the learned counsels, this Court finds that the case of the petitioner has been considered elaborately by the Council. The findings of the Council go to show that the 1st respondent is not due to the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Council, the remedy is provided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This Court cannot enter into disputed questions of fact under writ jurisdiction. Keeping open all contentions permissible in law that could be urged by the petitioner before the competent forum, the petition is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE DL