Karnataka High Court
Melange Systems Private Limited vs Micro And Small Enterprises on 21 September, 2022
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.14244 OF 2021(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MELANGE SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
COMPANIES ACT AND HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO 4/1,
7TH CROSS, KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE - 560 020.
REP BY ITS DIRECTOR MR NAGARAJ K G.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SATISH K, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.PRASHANTH G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES
FACILITATION COUNCIL(MSEFC)
REP BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
NO 49, 1ST FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. PAL MOHAN ELECTORNICS PRIVATE LIMITED.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT
AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
MOHAN PLAZA 40, DLF INDSUTRIAL AREA
KIRTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI- 110 015.
REP BY ITS DIRECTOR GAGANDEEP SACHEVA SINGH.
... RESPONDENTS
(R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 14TH JULY 2021 ISSUED
BY THE R1 TO THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-C.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the Endorsement dated 13/14.07.2022 which has the following text:
"ENDORSEMENT Sub: Case No.213/2019- Application filed before MSEFC by M/s Melange Systems Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru regarding Claiming of delayed payment from M/s Pal Mohan Electronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi - reg. Ref: MSEFC hearing held on 01.07.2021.
***** During the MSEFC hearing held on 01.07.2021, petitioner was present. Notice issued by this authority was returned said addressee not there. Council decided to disposed the case as closed at this stage itself.
Therefore, the case filed before MSEFC is closed."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that it is a very strange order that the 3 proceedings have been closed because the second respondent has not been served. He adds that in that event, the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to serve by substituted mode and in any circumstance, the case could not have been disposed off the way it has been.
3. Despite service of notice, the first respondent has chosen to remain unrepresented. No notice was issued to the second respondent who was not served in the original proceedings as well.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the petitioner and therefore, is of the considered opinion that the impugned Endorsement needs to be invalidated and matter be consequently remitted for fresh consideration. 4
In the above circumstances, the petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned Endorsement. The matter is remanded to the first respondent for consideration afresh all contentions having been kept open. The first respondent shall permit the petitioner to take service of notice on the second respondent by substituted mode.
After service of notice to the second respondent is accomplished, the dispute shall be heard & decided within an outer limit of six months.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv