Karnataka High Court
N R Bhadrachalam vs The Managing Director on 5 August, 2019
Bench: Chief Justice, Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
WRIT APPEAL NOS.2550/2019, 2551/2019, 2552/2019,
2553/2019, 2554/2019 AND 2555/2019 (GM-RES)
IN W.A.NO.2550/2019
BETWEEN
N.R. BHADRACHALAM
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O LATE RAJAPPA
PROPRIETOR
M/S QUALITY UTILITY ARTICLES
NO.3362, 13TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD
SHASTRINAGAR, NEW K.R. ROAD
BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE-560028
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI M. ARUN PONAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S KARNATAKA LEATHER INDUSTRIES
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., (LIDKAR)
OBLAONG BLOCK, 2ND FLOOR
NO.17/5, UNITY BUILDING
J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE-560002
2. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERMENT
INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001
3. THE KARNATAKA MICRO AND SMALL
ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL OF
-2-
KARNATAKA, (CHAIRMAN)
2ND FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK
KHANIJA BHAVAN
NO.47, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05/09/2018 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.5369/2011 AND ALLOW
THE WRIT APEPAL & ETC.
IN W.A.NO.2551/2019
BETWEEN
K.S. MADAN GOPAL
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O LATE K.R.SRINIVASA SHETTY
PROPRIETOR
M/S ANANTH LEATHER WORKS
NO.171, 6TH CROSS, TEACHERS COLONY
BANASHANKAR 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 070.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI M. ARUN PONAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S KARNATAKA LEATHER INDUSTRIES
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,(LIDKAR)
2ND FLOOR, OBLONG BLOCK
NO.17/5, UNITY BUILDING
J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002
2. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE KARNATAKA MICRO AND SMALL
ENTERPRISES FACILIATATION COUNCIL OF
KARNATAKA (CHAIRMAN)
2ND FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK
KHANIJA BHAVAN
-3-
NO.47, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05/09/2018 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE, IN W.P.NO.5375/2011 AND ALLOW
THE WRIT APPEAL & ETC.
IN W.A.NO.2552/2019
BETWEEN
S. LALITHA
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O N.R. BHADRACHALAM
PROPRIETRIX
M/S INDIAN LEATHER INDUSTRIES
NO.3362, 13TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
SHASTRINAGAR, NEW K.R.ROAD,
BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 028.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI M. ARUN PONAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S KARNATAKA LEATHER INDUSTRIES
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., (LIDKAR)
2ND FLOOR, OBLONG BLOCK
NO.17/5, UNITY BUILDING
J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002.
2. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNEMTN
INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE KARNATAKA MICRO AND SMALL
ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL OF
KARNATAKA (CHAIRMAN)
2ND FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK
KHANIJA BHAVAN
NO.47, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001
... RESPONDENTS
-4-
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05/09/2018 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.5373/2011 AND ALLOW
THE WRIT APPEAL.
IN W.A.NO.2553/2019
BETWEEN
S. KUMAR
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O LATE SUBBA BHATTA
PROPRIETOR
BANGALORE LEATHER CREATIONS
SOMANAHALLI VILLAGE
KANAKAPURA ROAD
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560082
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI M. ARUN PONAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S KARNATAKA LEATHER INDUSTRIES
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., (LIDKAR)
2ND FLOOR, NO.17/5, OBLONG BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, J.C.ROAD
BANGALORE-560002
2. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001
3. THE KARNATAKA MICRO AND SMALL
ENTEREPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL OF
KARNATAKA, (CHAIRMAN)
2ND FLOOR,SOUTH BLOCK
KHANIJA BHAVAN
NO.47, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
-5-
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05/09/2018 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.5371/2011 AND ALLOW
THE WRIT APPEAL & ETC.
IN W.A. NO.2554/2019
BETWEEN
VIJAYALAKSHMI
AGED 59 YEARS
W/O S. NAGARAJ
PROPRIETRIX
M/S SHWETHA ENGERPRISES
NO.440/25, 17TH MAIN ROAD
BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE
BANGALORE-560050
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI M. ARUN PONAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S KARNATAKA LEATHER INDUSTRIES
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., (LIDKAR)
NO.17/5, OBLONG BLOCK,
2ND FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING
J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE-560002
2. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERMENT
INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001
3. THE KARNATAKA MICRO AND SMALL
ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL OF
KARNATAKA, (CHAIRMAN)
2ND FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK
KHANIJA BHAVAN
NO.47, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05/09/2018 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE, IN W.P.NO.5376/2011 AND ALLOW
THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL.
-6-
IN W.A.NO.2555/2019
BETWEEN
N.R. RAMESH
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O LATE RAJAPPA
PROPRIETOR
M/S SRI MANJUNATHA LEATHER INDUSTRIES
4TH FLOOR, NO.10/3, 3-8,
3RD MAIN ROAD, 6TH CROSS,
VENKATAPURA LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560034
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI M. ARUN PONAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S KARNATAKA LEATHER INDUSTRIES
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., (LIDKAR)
2ND FLOOR, NO.17/5, OBLONG BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, J.C.ROAD
BANGALORE-560002
2. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE- 560001
3. THE KARNATAKA MICRO AND SMALL
ENTEREPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL OF
KARNATAKA, (CHAIRMAN)
2ND FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK,
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05/09/2018 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE, IN W.P.NO.5374/2011 AND ALLOW
THE WRIT APPEAL & ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-7-
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
2. The appellants had taken recourse to the remedy under Section 18 of the Minor, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short 'the said Act of 2006'). The awards were made and it was held that the first respondent was not liable to pay any amount to the appellants. The awards were subjected to a challenge before the learned Single Judge by filing the writ petitions. The awards were made in the year 2009-2010. The writ petitions were filed in the year 2011.
3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants by observing that while passing the awards, the Karnataka Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, after examining the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that nothing is due and payable to the appellants. The claim before the learned Single Judge by the appellants was for payment of amounts allegedly due and payable by the first respondent to the appellants together with interest for the delayed payment.
-8-
4. The learned Single Judge referred to the awards made and held that the Council has already recorded a finding on the issue of liability of the first respondent and if the appellants were aggrieved by the awards made by the Council, the remedy was under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with sub-Section (3) of Section 18 of the said Act of 2006.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that it is a case of injustice to the appellants who are small enterprises. His submission is that the appellants were not properly advised and therefore, instead of adopting the remedy as aforesaid, the appellants were advised to file the writ petitions.
6. After having considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, we find no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge when he held that the remedy of the appellants was under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in view of sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the said Act of 2006.
7. The learned Single Judge has specifically kept the remedy open while dismissing the writ petitions. -9-
8. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeals and the same are dismissed. If in law, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of exclusion of time spent in prosecuting the writ petitions and these appeals, the appellants are entitled to urge the same while adopting the appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE AHB