Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iii) that the Petitioner has not raised any claims against Respondent No.2 in terms of the two agreements;
(iv) that Respondent No.2 being the Buyer cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the MSEFC. Reliance is placed upon the provisions of the Act i.e., Sections 15 to 18 to argue that the jurisdiction of the MSEFC would not exist where there is no amount due;
(v) the obligation of the Buyer is to make prompt payment;
(vi) that in case of delay, the liability is to pay interest to the Supplier at three times of the bank rate;
(vii) that once a Supplier avails the jurisdiction of MSEFC, the Buyer cannot avoid the said jurisdiction on the plea that the MSEFC cannot entertain a counter claim by the Buyer. A counter claim can, therefore, be filed by the Buyer before the MSEFC to avoid parallel proceedings, which may lead to conflicting findings.

38. Coming to the facts of the present case, Respondent No.2/ Buyer has filed an independent claim against the Petitioner/ Supplier. Moreover, the claim of the Respondent No.2/ Buyer also appears to be in the form of a damages claim for compensation and is not in the nature of amount payable for goods supplied or services rendered. The Respondent No.1/ MSEFC does not appreciate the fact that in the present case, the claim is by a Buyer against a Supplier. The same is also evident from the impugned order itself, which appears to be a standard format order where only claims of Supplier are entertained by the Buyers. The MSEFC has failed to appreciate the fact that the said impugned order has been given at the instance of the Buyer, which its own form does not contemplate. It is evident that even basic application of mind has not been made by the MSEFC while issuing the impugned order.

39. The Respondent No.1/ MSEFC has also failed to consider the provisions of the MSMED Act, 2006 which provide that the MSEFC can only entertain claims from the Suppliers against the Buyers and counter claim by the Buyers against Suppliers and that it cannot entertain the independent claim by the Buyer against the Supplier under the MSMED Act, 2006.

40. The impugned order dated 14th September 2021 passed by the MSEFC is, therefore not sustainable and is accordingly set aside.