Allahabad High Court Cute Products India vs Regency Cycles Pvt. Ltd. on 23 January, 2025 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:12205 Court No. 9 Case : WRIT C No. 17132 of 2024 Petitioner : Cute Products India Respondent : Regency Cycles Pvt. Ltd. and Another Counsel for Petitioner : Manisha Chaturvedi,Smt. Chandra Kala Chaturvedi,Vivek Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent : Siddharth Singhal Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. Heard Ms. Manisha Chaturvedi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1. 2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Meerut Zone, Meerut (hereinafter referred as "MSEFC".) 3. The petitioner, before this Court, is the purchaser of the goods supplied by respondent no. 1 in the year 2019. As the payment was not made to respondent no. 1/supplier, respondent no. 1 approached MSEFC and conciliation proceedings were started in the year 2023. Reference under Section 18 of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter called as "the Act of 2006") was made on 16.06.2023 to Council. The petitioner was put to notice as the matter being pending before the Council and the said fact was intimated through email by Council as well as respondent no. 1 on 03.06.2023. Registered notice was also sent which was delivered on 23.06.2023. The Council had also issued registered notice which was also received by the petitioner. The petitioner did not appear before the Council on the said date and an order was passed by Council granting time to file statement of defence and in case it was not filed the Council was to proceed with making the award as per available records. Thereafter, on 21.09.2023, the Council again sent an email as well as registered notice was sent intimating the petitioner that the next date fixed in the matter was 31.10.2023. Notice by post was received/delivered to petitioner on 03.10.2023. The respondent/supplier also sent an email and registered post intimating the date to petitioner which was also served. On 31.10.2023, again petitioner did not appear nor filed his statement of defence in spite of notice having been served. The Council recorded the said fact and held that as a last opportunity, 15 days' time is granted for filing defence statement and any failure in doing so would lead to invocation of Section 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as "the Act of 1996"). 4. The Council on 02.03.2024 through email informed the petitioner about the next date which was fixed as 05.03.2024 and on that date the petitioner had appeared but no statement of defence was filed and the Council proceeded with the matter and on the documents available on the record reserved for an award. 5. After the Council had reserved for an award, the statement of defence was filed by petitioner on 27.03.2024. Hence, the present writ petition. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite their appearance on 05.03.2024 and statement of defence having been filed on 27.03.2024, the Council is proceeding to make an award without hearing them. It is further contended that Section 25 mandates that before proceeding to make an award in case the party has failed to appear, the court should have recorded that matter would be heard exparte. Reliance has been placed upon decision of Delhi High Court rendered in case of M/s Radharamana Capital Services Pvt Ltd vs. M/s Jaypee Capital Services Ltd, OMP No. 673 of 2009, decided on 30.11.2012. Learned counsel further laid stress on the fact that only two dates were fixed in the matter and once the petitioner came to know about the fact that the matter is fixed for 05.03.2024, the petitioner appeared through his counsel and sought time for filing statement of defence which has been denied by Council nor the contention made before Facilitation Council was recorded in the order impugned and the same was uploaded on the website of the Council on 15.04.2024. 7. Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 submitted that the notice was sent to petitioner through email address provided by the petitioner and it is the same email address through which the statement of defence was served upon respondent no. 1/supplier. He has invited attention of the Court to page 23 to 34 of the counter affidavit wherein the correspondence made with petitioner through email as well as postal tracking report has been appended demonstrating the fact that notice sent to petitioner was served from time to time either by supplier/respondent no. 1 or by the Council but the petitioner had deliberately avoided to present at the time of hearing before the Facilitation Council which ultima