High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in favour of the Petitioner quashing and setting aside the proceedings on the file of Respondent No.1 vide Reference No. 229llFC/ It/dl-A/lg/ 2024 dt.O4-11-2O24 - initiated by the Respondent No.1 on a reference application filed by the Respondent no.3 under Section 17 and 18 of the MSME Act - as wholly without jurisdiction, ab initio void, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the statutory provisions of IVSIVED lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings vide Reference No. 229llFC/lt/ dll,ltlgl 2024 dl.O4-11-2024 before the Respondent Nc.1 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SUDHAKAR REDDY CHALLA Counsel for the Respondent nos.1&3: ---- Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE The Court made the following: ORDER I,l TTIE, HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.19622 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Sudhakar Reddy Challa, learned counsel tbr petitioner and learned Governmenf Pleader for Industries and Commerce appearing for 2"d respondent.

2. According to the petitioner, 3'd respondent has filed an application befbre 1" respondent, Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (for short 'Council') claiming an amount of Rs.2,16,70,000/- from the petitioner herein towards expenses on various heads, and the said application is not maintainable. Therefore, it has trled a prcliminary objection, dated 02.01.2025 before 1" respondent Council stating that l" respondent Counoil has no jurisdiction to enterlain the application filed by 3'd respondent. Even then, l" respondent is not deciding the said objection. Challenging the said action of l" respondent, petitioner filcd thc present Writ Petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that 1" responclent has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the application flled by 3'.d respondent and the same is not maintainable. \ 2 KL..I W P No.19622 oi 2025 Referring to Sections 15 to 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for shorl 'MSME Act'),, leamed counsel for the petitioner would contend that 1't respondent has to consider the saicl provisions and decide the preliminary objection filed by the petitioner with regard to the jurisdiction of 1'' respondent Council. He would further contend that petitioner has issued Lerter of lntent in favour of 3'd respondent and the samc was tcnninated thereafter. Theretbre, 3'd respondent filed aloresaid apptication before 1't respondent with regard to the recovery of payment The same will not come within the purview of the provisiorrs of the MSME Act. Therefore, raising the said grounds, thc petitioner has filed aforesaid prelirninary objection befcrre l " respondent on 02.01.2025. However, l" respondent is not considering the same.

4. Leamed Govemment Pleader for Industries and Commerce, on instructions, would submit that l" respondent has no power to decide the jurisdictional issue as preliminary issue. l" respondent will consider the said ob.jection raised by petitioner along with the claim filed by 3'd respondent. / ; /..,, 3 KI-, J w P No.19622 o{ 2025

5. ln the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is relevant to note that Section 15 of the MSME Act deals with liabilitv of buyer to make payment, Section 16 deals with date from which and rate at wl-rich interest is payable and Section 17 deals with recovery o1' amount due. lt says, for any goods supplied or services rendered by the supplier, the buyer shall be liable to pay the amount with interest thereon as provicled under Section 16 of the MSME Act. Thus,, claiming the services rendered by the supplier, a pafty can file an application before the MSME Council. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that it has issued only Letter of Intent in f'avoul of 3'd rcsponrlent and the sallte was terminated and the claim filed by 3'd respondcnt before l't respondent is \ not maintainable can't be accepted.

6. Perusal of the application filed by 3'd respondent before l't respondent would reveal that it has rendered services to the petitioner herein. Therelbre, l" respondent cannot decide the jurisdictional issue as a prelimir.rary issue and the petitioner has to raise the said issue along with other issues and l', 4 IiL, J l\] P.No.19622 ol2025 .: 'a' respondent will decide the same along with the claim filed by 3'd respondent 7 . ln the light of thc aforesaid discussion, this Court is not inclined to enteftain the present Writ Petition.

8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise all the grounds and contentions including the jurisdictional issue and rnaintainability of the claim filed by 3'd respondent before l" respondent, and it is for l" respondent to consider and decide the same. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications, if any pcnding, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY' SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGIPTRAR secrrfN'btrrlcen To, 1 One CC to SRl. SUDHAKAR REDDY CHALLA Advocate [OPUC] 2 TwoCCstoGPFoR|NDUSTRIESANDCOIMMERCE,HighCourtforthe Siaie of telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD CoPies 3 KKS T HIGH COURT DATED:0910712025 ! ) ORDER WP.No.19622 of 2025 10 SEP 206 ii.t. ,. -' -i' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS