ASIATIC RUBRO COMPLEX v. THE KERALA MICRO & SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petitions are disposed of as above
Provisions considered
Judgment
WP(C) 3954 & 3956 of 2008 Page numbersconsidering that the applicant had failed to make their claim at theappropriate legal forum, favourable orders have been declined. Similarly, in the order in O.A.8/06 challenged in W.P.(C) 3956/08,though two items of claims have been negatived, for the reasonthat the petitioner did not pursue the legal course that is available, orders have been declined in respect of the remaining claims.3. It is challenging the aforesaid orders produced as Ext.P2 inthese writ petitions, the petitioners have approached this courtseeking to quash the aforesaid order and to direct that the matterbe considered.4. The 1st respondent, the Kerala Micro and Small EnterprisesFacilitation Council, has been established under sec.20 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. Sec.18 ofthe Act provides for reference to the 1st respondent, and the sectionreads as follows:-1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law forthe time being in force, any party to a dispute may, withregard to any amount due under section 17, make a referenceto the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council.
WP(C) 3954 & 3956 of 2008 Page numbers2) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Council shall either itself conduct conciliation in the matter orseek the assistance of any institution or centre providingalternate dispute resolution services by making a reference tosuch an institution or centre, for conducting conciliation andthe provisions of sections 65 to 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply to such a dispute as if theconciliation was initiated under Part III of that Act.3) Where the conciliation initiated under sub-section (2) is notsuccessful and stands terminated without any settlementbetween the parties, the Council shall either itself take up thedispute for arbitration or refer it to any institution or centreproviding alternate dispute resolution services for sucharbitration and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (96 of 1996) shall then apply to thedispute as if the arbitration was in pursuance of an arbitrationagreement referred to in sub-section (1) of section 7 of that Act.4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law forthe time being in force, the Micro and Small EnterprisesFacilitation Council or the centre providing alternate dispute WP(C) 3954 & 3956 of 2008 Page numbersresolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as an Arbitrator or Conciliator under this section in a disputebetween the supplier located within its jurisdiction and a buyerlocated anywhere in India.5) Every reference made under this section shall be decidedwithin a period of ninety days from the date of making such areference.” 5.
A reading of sec.18 shows that on receipt of a referencemade by the petitioners in these cases, the 1st respondent is boundto initiate conciliation in the matter either by itself or by seekingassistance of any other institution providing alternate disputeresolution services. Sub-section (3) provides that where theconciliation is unsuccessful and stands terminated withoutsettlement between the parties, the Council shall either by itselftake up the dispute for arbitration or refer it to any institution orcentre providing alternate dispute resolution services for sucharbitration in terms of the provisions contained in the Arbitrationand Conciliation Act. WP(C) 3954 & 3956 of 2008 Page numbers 6. A reading of Ext.P2 orders passed in these cases showsthat as against its duty to initiate conciliation and on its failure, arbitration in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,the 1st respondent has declined to consider the matter on meritsand directed the petitioners to pursue legal course.
Operative part
This means thatthe petitioners are now relegated to pursue their claims before acivil court. In my view, it is to avoid taking recourse to civil courtand for settlement of disputes through the mechanism of alternatedispute resolution that the Act itself has been legislated. The ordernow passed by the 1st respondent defeats the very purpose andobject of the Act and in fact it reflects abdication of duties by the 1strespondent. 7. For these reasons Ext.P2 orders in these cases will standquashed and the 1st respondent is directed to take OA Nos.7/06 and8/06 back on file, and dispose of the same in the manner asprovided under sec.18 of the aforesaid Act. 8. It is clarified hat the petitioner in WP(C) 3956/08 does notdispute the finding of the 1st respondent in paragraph 10 about the WP(C) 3954 & 3956 of 2008 Page numberstwo claims which have been negatived and the adjudication shall beconfined to the other claims alone. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGEmt/-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petitions are disposed of as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996 — ss. 65, 81; Arbitrationand Conciliation Act; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 31 Mar 2008. The bench was ANTONY DOMINIC.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.