Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6 Having held that the petition was not maintainable, the High Court has nonetheless inquired into whether the claim was barred by the limitation and has come to the conclusion, following the decision of this Court in Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited vs Mahakali Foods Private Limited (Unit 2) and Another3, that the claim was time barred. 7 We have heard Mr Parag P Tripathi, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Dr S Muralidhar, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent.

13 For the above reasons, we are in agreement with the view of the Division Bench of the High Court that the writ petition which was instituted by the appellant was not maintainable.

14 Mr Parag P Tripathi, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant sought to urge that the view of the Facilitation Council to the effect that the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963 have no application, which has been affirmed by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment, suffers from a perversity, and hence a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ought to have been entertained. We cannot accept this submission for the simple reason that Section 18 of the MSMED Act 2006 provides for recourse to a statutory remedy for challenging an award under the Act of 1996. However, recourse to the remedy is subject to the discipline of complying with the provisions of Section 19. The entertaining of a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, in order to obviate compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 19, would defeat the object and purpose of the special enactment which has been legislated upon by Parliament.

15 For the above reasons, we affirm the decision of the Division Bench by holding that it was justified in coming to the conclusion that the petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution instituted by the appellant was not maintainable. Hence, it was unnecessary for the High Court, having come to the conclusion that the petition was not maintainable, to enter upon the merits of the controversy which arose before the Facilitation Council. 16 Mr Parag P Tripathi, senior counsel then submitted that the appellant would move proceedings under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 and this Court may direct that they may be disposed of expeditiously. Having come to the conclusion that the remedy which was adopted by the appellant was thoroughly misconceived, it is not necessary for this Court to make any observation on what course of action should be adopted by the appellant. Were the appellant at this stage to take recourse to the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, it would be open to the second respondent to object on all counts which are available in law.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Atul Shankar Mathur, Adv.

Mrs. Priya Singh, Adv.

Mr. Shubhankar, Adv.

Mr. Sarvapriya Makkar, Adv.

M/s. Khaitan & Co.

For Respondent(s) Mr. K.M. Natraj, ASG Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv.

Mr. Sharath Nambair, Adv.