9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Leave granted. 2. Aggrieved by a common order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, in two writ petitions, one filed by the appellant herein and another filed by the 1st respondent herein, setting aside an order passed by the Facilitation Council under The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MSMED Act') and remanding the matter back to the Facilitation Council for a fresh inquiry, the buyer has come up with the above appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Ashok Arora, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr. Suresh Dhole, learned counsel appearing for the State. 4. Admittedly, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng dated 17.02.2009 that the claim of respondent no.1 was liable to be rejected. The operative portion of the minutes of the meeting of the Facilitation Council dated 17.02.2009 reads as follows: "...Having heard to both parties, Chairman informed that decision of council will be conveyed upon observation/scrutiny of papers. Thereafter, upon observation of the papers and in opinion of all the members, application of Ajant press is rejected as Mr. Mankar has already accepted the Cheque of Rs 35000/in accordance with the minutes of meeting dated 30.04.2004, this be informed to both parties accordingly." 9. Challenging the said decision of the Facilitation Council dated 17.02.2009, respondent no.1 filed a writ petition in W.P. No.3508 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the MSMED Act itself. In Silipi Industries vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Another [SCC online SC439] this Court made it clear that the MSMED Act is not applicable to transactions which took place even before the Act was enacted and that by taking recourse to Section 8(1) of the Act and filing a memorandum, a person cannot assume the legal status conferred under the Act to claim retrospectively. Therefore, the Facilitation Council was wrong in entertaining the claim, even in the first instance, in the year 2009. 13. But fortunately, the entertainment of the claim by the Facilitation Council in the first instance did not result in a serious consequence. The Facilitation Council rejected the claim by its decision dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll either itself take up the dispute for arbitration or refer to it any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services for such arbitration and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall then apply to the dispute as if the arbitration was in pursuance of an arbitration agreement referred to in sub-section (1) of section 7 of that Act." 15. A combined reading of Sections 18 and 19 would show, (i) that to begin with, the Facilitation Council should conduct conciliation; (ii) that upon failure of conciliation, the dispute is to be arbitrated either by the Facilitation council itself or by an institution to which it is referred; and (iii) that the decision arrived at thereto, constitu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
