Bombay High Court M/S. Bharat Kolkata Container ... vs Goa Micro And Small Enterprises , ... on 11 July, 2024 2024:BHCGOA:1100 2024:BHCGOA:1100 WP.555 OF 2024(F) Shakuntala WRIT PETITION NO.555 OF 2024(F) M/S Bharat Kolkata Container Terminals Pvt. Ltd. Through its Authorized Representative a Company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 2013, having its registered office at 1st Floor, Chhabildas Tower, 6A Middleton Street, Kolkata, West Bengal 700071 ......PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Goa Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Office of the Directorate of Industries, Trade and Commerce, Udyog Bhavan, Panaji, Goa 403001 2. Karunya Overseas & Technical Services Pvt. Ltd., a Company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 2013, having its registered office at Office No. 11, Ground Floor, Evershine Mall Premises Cooperative Society Limited, Malad (W), Mumbai 400064. Through its Director Mr. Gopal Rameshwar Sawant Residing at 1016/8, Flat BS3, Near SBI Branch Kamson Residency, Vijaya Nagar, Bardez, Porvorim, North Goa403521. ....RESPONDENTS Mr. Nitin Sardessai, Senior Counsel alongwith Mr. Vibhav R. Amonkar, Ms. Archana Uppuluri, Mr. Siddharth Sardesai and Ms. Vaishali Mahato, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Shubham Priolkar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No. 1. Respondent No.2 present in person. Page 1 of 11 11th July 2024 ::: Uploaded on 12/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on 13/07/2024 03:23:59 ::: WP.555 OF 2024(F) DATED : 11th July, 2024 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. Rule. 2. Rule is made returnable forth with. 3. Matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself with consent of the parties. 4. The issue raised in the present matter is regarding the notice dated 04.01.2024 issued by the Nodal Officer for Goa Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council stating therein that the hearing of the case was taken up on 08.12.2023 between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 and since the conciliation is not possible, the Council invoked its power under Section 18 (3) of Micro,Small and Medium Enterpises Development Act 2006 (MSMED) to refer the matter for arbitration. 5. Mr. Sardessai learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said Council is not having jurisdiction even to entertain the conciliation proceedings launched on behalf of respondent no.2 and also to refer the matter to the arbitration. He submits that respondent no. 2 entered into a contract with the petitioner on 01.06.2018 which is purely a service contract. The said contract was terminated on 20.12.2018. He submits that at the Page 2 of 11 11th July 2024 ::: Uploaded on 12/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on 13/07/2024 03:23:59 ::: WP.555 OF 2024(F) time of entering into the contract with respondent no.2, the enterprise of respondent no.2 was not registered under the Act of 2006. He would further submit that respondent no.2 filed an application for registration under the MSMED Act 2006 on 17.12.2018. The contract was terminated on 20.12.2018 and between 17.12.2018 to 20.12.2018, there were no services rendered by respondent no. 2 to the petitioners. 6. Mr. Sardessai would submit that on receipt of notice of conciliation from the Nodal Officer of the Council, petitioners appeared and raised objections with regard to the jurisdiction of the said Council even to entertain the proceedings for and on behalf of respondent no.2 on the ground that as on the date of contract of respondent no.2 was not registered as a small or medium scale under the MSMED Act 2006. Even though such objections were raised, the council failed to decide whether the said Council is having jurisdiction even to consider the matter for the purpose of conciliation and then refer it to the ar