--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITION NO. 7978 / 2009 BMS INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. CHAIRMAN, MP MICRO & SMALL ENTERPRIES & 2 OTHERS WRIT PETITION NO. 7976 / 2009 TECHNOCRAFT INDUSTRIES (I) LTD., Vs. CHAIRMAN, MP MICRO & SMALL ENTERPRIES & 2 OTHERS A N D WRIT PETITION NO. 7977 / 2009 TECHNOCRAFT INDUSTRIES (I) LTD., Vs. CHAIRMAN, MP MICRO & SMALL ENTERPRIES & 2 OTHERS * * * * * O R D E R ( 29/11/2011) Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of Writ Petition No. 7978 / 2009 are narrated hereunder. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ --- 2 --- petition being aggrieved by the ex-parte award dt. 4/3/09 passed by the MP Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Bhopal, in the matter of M/s. Dhar Industries Ltd., Vs. M/s. Brihan Maharashtra Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., (now known as 'BMS Industries Ltd.). The contention of the petitioner is that a claim for recovery of Rs.7045064/- with interest was preferred by respondent No.2 Dhar Industries Ltd., alleging loss on account of non delivery of HR coils and the dispute was relating to the year 1994. Petitioner has further stated that as per the provisions of the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 a notice was issued to the petitioner, however, the contention of the petitioner is that the same was not received at any point of time by the petitioner and the respondent No.2 by submitting false status of the petitioner that it is a small enterprises has made a reference u/S. 18 of the Facilitation Council by practising fraud. It has been stated that a certificate issued by the General Manager, Distt. Industries Centre, Pithampur dt. 16/12/88 was filed along with the claim and based upon the certificate of the year 1988 the council has treated the petitioner to be a small enterprises and has passed the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued before this Court that respondent No.2 is not at all a small enterprises nor even a medium enterprises as defined under the provisions of Sec. 7 of the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 as the --- 3 --- investment in the plant and machinery is of Rs.36.18 crores as per the audited balance sheet of the respondent No.2 Company as on 31st December 2003 which was certainly more than the eligible limit of Rs.5 crores and 10 crores, as provided under the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. It has also been argued that u/S. 7 of the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, the enterprises are qualified as Micro, Small or Medium Enterprises and the matter is not at all covered under the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, nor the MI Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council is empowered to pass any such order. Petitioner's grievance is that based upon the orders passed by the respondent No.1 Council, the respondent No.3 Collector has issued a consequential recovery order based upon the RRC issued in the State of Madhya Pradesh and therefore the impugned RRC dt. 19/9/09 as well as the proceedings before the Collector deserves to be stayed. In the present case, inspite of service of notices no reply has been filed till date in the matter nor there is any appearance on behalf of the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record. In the present case, an Award has been passed under the provisions of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 of MP Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, --- 4 --- Bhopal. The petitioner has raised various grounds before this Court and he has argued before this Court that the Council is not competent to decide the dispute in the present case and has transgressed its jurisdiction by passing the impugned award. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that as per the provisions of Sec. 7 of the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 as the investment in the plant & machinery in respect of respondent No.2 is 36.18 crores that too as per the audited balance sheet as on 31/12/03 which was certainly more than the eligibility limits of 5 crores and 10 crores respectively, the council could not have assumed the jurisdiction inspite of there being a specific provision in respect of jurisdiction as contained u/S. 7 of the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. In the present case, it is also an admitted fact that the petitioner was not heard at any point of time by the Council and inspite of service there is no representation on behalf of the respondents in the present case. Resultantly, this court is left with no other choice except to quash the impugned order and to remit the matter back to the Council to decide it afresh after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent No.2. It is needless to mention that the Council shall pass an appropriate order in the matter of jurisdiction first and then shall proceed in accordance with law in case it arrives at the conclusion that the Council is having --- 5 --- jurisdiction to deliver an award keeping in view the objections raised by the present petitioner as well as the objections raised by the Council after this remand order. With the aforesaid this petition stands allowed. The impugned award passed by the Council dt. 4/3/09, consequential RRC issued by the Collector dt. 12/9/09 and the proceedings before the Naib Tehsildar, Mumbai are also set aside. The writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. The other connected writ petitions ie., WP NO. 7976 / 2009 and WP NO. 7977 / 2009 are also allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Council. This order be retained in WP NO. 7978 / 2009 and a copy each be placed in the record of connected petitions. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR