AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. To declare that Respondent No. 1 does not have the jurisdiction to entertain Exhibit P6 petition filed by the Respondent No. 3 for delayed payment, in view of the objections raised by the petitioner as there is no acceptance of service or deemed acceptance of service and consequently the reference to arbitration under the MSME Act, 2006 to the Respondent No. 2 is illegal.
ii. To declare that the reference made by the Respondent No.1 to arbitration under section 18 to Respondent No.2, without passing a speaking order and without serving a copy of the order upon the petitioner and without complying with the principles of natural justice is illegal.
iii. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for records leading to Exhibits P15 and P16 arbitration hearing notices issued by the Respondent No. 2 and to quash the same.
iv. To allow such other relief that this Hon'ble court may deem appropriate in the interest of justice.
The first prayer in this writ petition is to declare that the 1st respondent does not have the jurisdiction to entertain Ext.P6 petition filed by the 3rd respondent for delayed payment, in view of the objections raised by the petitioner as there is no acceptance of service or deemed acceptance of service and consequently the reference to arbitration under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act (for short, the MSME Act) to the 2nd respondent.
Admittedly the 1st respondent already referred the matter and the 2nd respondent is now appointed as the arbitrator. The order referring the matter for arbitration under Section 18 of the MSME Act is not produced. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to issue such an order in the facts and circumstances of this case. Without perusing that order, this Court is not in a position to say whether the 1st respondent has got jurisdiction. There can be a direction to the 1st respondent to issue a copy of that order to the petitioner because even though notice was issued to respondents 1 and 2 through e-mail, there is no appearance. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that even though the petitioner approached the 1st respondent for getting the order, the same is not served. Therefore there can be a direction to the 1st respondent to issue a copy of the order order.
The second point raised by the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent is continuing with the arbitration proceedings and unless an interim order is passed, the matter itself will become infructuous. But the counsel who appeared for respondents 3 and 4 submitted that the petitioner already filed an application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act before the 2nd respondent and that is pending consideration. If that is the case, the petitioner can insist the 2nd respondent to hear and pass orders in that application first before proceeding with the case. The petitioner can be given that liberty also. Then the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner want to file a petition before the 1st respondent raising the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to refer the matter under Section 18 of the MSME Act. The petitioner is free to approach the 1st respondent and file such an application and if the 1st respondent is having jurisdiction, he will do the needful in accordance to law.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the following manner:
The 1st respondent will issue a copy of the order passed under Section 18(3) of the the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act referring the issue for arbitration to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The petitioner is free to raise the contention based on his application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent will do the needful after hearing the parties, in accordance to law.
The petitioner is also free to raise the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to invoke the powers under Section 18 of the the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act and the 1st respondent will consider the same if he has jurisdiction to consider the same in accordance to law.