Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Stup Consultants Pvt Ltd vs Micro And Small Enterprises ... on 3 November, 2022
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
$~64
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13653/2022, CM APPL. 47185/2022
M/S STUP CONSULTANTS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Mr.
Himanshu Kaushal, Advs.
versus
MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION
COUNCIL (MSEFC) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Mr.
Naved Ahmed, Mr. Vivek
Kumar, Advs. for R-1
Appearance not given for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
ORDER
% 03.11.2022
1. This writ petition had laid challenge to a reference of a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 in terms of the provisions made in Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ["the 2006 Act"].
2. The challenge was premised on the ground that the parties had arrived at a settlement which stood duly incorporated in an agreement which came to be executed on 17 December 2019 and therefore the reference would not sustain.
3. The second respondent who has appeared through its authorised representative has placed for the perusal of the Court a reply which has been drawn and has appended thereto a draft Settlement Agreement which had been drawn up for the consideration of parties. He specifically draws the attention of the Court to the fact that clause 5.5 which had been framed by the petitioner here seeking to assert that the Settlement Agreement would constitute a full and final settlement Signature Not Verified of all claims was specifically scored out and not accepted. He submits Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:04.11.2022 18:12:07 that apart from the principal amounts which were secured under the Settlement Agreement, the petitioner was also liable to pay interest for delayed disbursal. According to the said respondent, it is these and other disputes which form the subject matter of proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal.
4. The aforesaid facts would clearly demolish the contention of the petitioner that there did not exist any dispute between the parties which warranted referral for the consideration of the Arbitral Tribunal. From the stand taken by the second respondent, it is apparent at least prima facie that it cannot be said that no dispute existed between the parties. In any case, whether the Settlement Agreement would constitute a discharge of liabilities insofar as the petitioner is concerned and all other allied issues are open to be addressed before the Arbitral Tribunal. Presently and for the purposes of the present writ petition, it may only be observed that the reference under Section 18 was clearly justified and valid in law bearing in the mind the existence of disputes and differences that continue to fester between the parties. The challenge consequently fails.
5. The writ petition shall stand dismissed. The Court deems it necessary to observe that it has not rendered any categorical finding with respect to the assertion of the petitioner that the Settlement Agreement would amount to a complete discharge insofar as the petitioner is concerned. Consequently, all contentions of respective parties on merits are kept open to be addressed before the Arbitral Tribunal.
6. The next date of hearing i.e.15.11.2022 stands cancelled.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
NOVEMBER 3, 2022 Signature Not Verified neha Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:04.11.2022 18:12:07