Karnataka High Court M/S Raffles Residency Pvt Ltd vs M/S Enkon Engineering on 10 November, 2025 DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.389 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S. RAFFLES RESIDENCY PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.54, 'THE PLANET' 2ND FLOOR WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD OPPOSITE HUL RESEARCH CENTRE WHITEFIELD BENGALURU560 066 NOW AT: RAFFLES PARK, SOUKYA ROAD SAMETHANAHALLI VILLAGE ANUGONDAHANAHLLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALUUR RURAL DISTRICT560 067 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. HUSSAIN SOMJEE ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. JOSHUA HUDSON SAMUEL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. ENKON ENGINEERING A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 2 No.42, 2ND FLOOR, 8E MAIN ROAD JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK BENGALURU560 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. B.K. SUBRAMANYAM 2. THE MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE HAVING OFFICE AT: No.49 FIRST FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU560 001 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BALASUBRAHMANYA K.M., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 (AS AMENDED) R/W SECTION 96 AND ORDER XLI RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC, 1908 (AS AMENDED), PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN COM.A.P. No.68 OF 2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT AT BENGALURU (CCH84), AND AFTER EXAMINING THE LEGALITY AND VALIDITY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.07.2024, BE PLEASED TO (a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.07.2024 PASSED BY THE LXXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT AT BENGALURU (CCH 84), IN COM.A.P. No.68/2023 AND RESTORE THE COM. A.P. No.68/2023 TO THE FILE OF LXXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT AT BENGALURU (CCH84) FOR PROCEEDINGS ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 29.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: 3 and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This Commercial Appeal is preferred challenging the order dated 26.07.2024 of the LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH84) ('Commercial Court' for short) in COMAP No.68/2023. 2. We have heard Shri. Joshua Hudson Samuel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri. Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Balasubrahmanya K.M, learned advocate appearing for Caveator/Respondent No.1. 3. The appellant who was the respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal had filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the award dated 19.01.2023 passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council ('Facilitation Council' for short) in Case No.141 of 2020. An office objection as well 4 as the preliminary objection by the first respondent herein was raised as to the maintainability of the application without depositing 75% of the award amount. Relying on Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, ('MSMED Act' for short), the Commercial Court held that whenever an application or petition is filed for setting aside an award made Facilitation Council, the Court cannot entertain the petition without deposit of 75% of the awarded amount. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No.1 was not a "Supplier" within the meaning of the MSMED Act as on the date of entering into the contract with the appellant and consequently could not have made the reference under Section 18 of the MSMED Act. It is therefore contended that the award is made without jurisdiction and is non est in law. It is contended that these aspects of the matter were specifically raised before the Commercial Court, but were not considered in the proper perspective. 5 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relies on the following judgments: