M/s PAR Advisory Services Pvt Ltd Through Its Authorized Representative Plot No.31, Pushpgiri Apartment, Paud Road, Rambaugh Colony, Pune 411 038. Respondent. ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. D.S. Bagul Advocate for Respondent : Mr. A. P. Bhandari ... CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. Dated : July 03, 2025 JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Petitioner impugns the order dated 25.5.2023 passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Pune (for short referred to as 'MSME Council'). 2 wp 5162.25.odt 3. Brief facts giving rise to present writ petition are as under : Respondent initiated proceeding against the petitioner under section 20 of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short 'MSMED Act, 2006') with MSME Council, Pune, contending that respondent is engaged in providing advisory/consultation service. Petitioner being cooperative society engaged him to raise various Credit facilities. The terms of assignment were modulated by agreement dated 16.8.2010. The respondent provided his services in terms of the agreement, however, petitioner failed to pay the amount of remuneration that made respondent to initiate the proceeding vide petition No.30 of 2012 under section 20 of MSMED Act, 2006. Petitioner raised objection/maintainability of the petition as financial services rendered by respondent do not come under the scope of MSMED Act, 2006. Further, put up a defence that respondent had not provided services for obtaining any loan or cash credit. Amount of Rs.2.00 Lakh is already paid to respondent towards service charges for Credit Limit sanctioned by Dena Bank and there are no dues as claimed. 3 wp 5162.25.odt 4. On 1.8.2014 Reference Court passed an Award under section 18 (3) of MSMED Act, 2006 holding that respondent is entitled for dues for first stage as per fixed structure given in the agreement dated 16.8.2010 and petitioner was directed to consider payment of service charges towards finances provided by Dena Bank, Ratnakar Bank and IDBI Bank Limited. On 18.5.2015 the decree was transferred to District Judge/Competent Designated Judge for execution. However, on 21.5.2015 respondent submitted a letter to Member, Secretary, MSME Council, Pune to modify the decree and specify decretal amount. However, on 27.6.2015 Council refused to entertain the application as award was already transferred for execution to Competent Court. 5. Meanwhile, respondent submitted invoices regarding financial services provided by him towards obtaining loan of Rs.17 Crores from Ratnakar Bank. Petitioner refused to entertain such invoice. Thereafter, respondent submitted three different bills before learned District Judge, Dhule in Special Darkhast No.50 of 2017 raising the claim of Rs.4,44,854/, Rs.5,75,000/ and Rs.10,75,250/ and claimed an amount of Rs.32,05,134/ from petitioner. Petitioner opposed such claims 4 wp 5162.25.odt and contended that respondent is entitled for Rs.44,854/ only. Learned District Judge refused to entertain petitioner's contention on the ground that Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree vide his order dated 22.9.2021. Petitioner assailed said order in Writ Petition no.12003 of 2021. This Court, after hearing the parties, allowed s