logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 5735 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : W.P. No. 28943 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
Parties : Dharani Geotech Engineers India Pvt Ltd, Rep by its Managing Director K. Jayavel, Namakkal Versus Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation council, Rep by its secretary Coimbatore Region, Coimbatore & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: J. Ravikumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, S. Sidhartha Vishnu, Government Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 03-08-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in MSEFC No.32/D5/2025 dated 12.3.2026 and quash he same and consequently, direct the 1st respondent to admit and enter reference on the application filed by the petitioner on 5.5.2025 through the Samadhann Portal bearing Application No.UDYAMTN-0003214/S/00003 filed under section 18 of the MSMED Act without insisting upon production of formal invoices and to dispose of the same in accordance with law.)

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the first respondent, whereby the petition filed under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“the Act”) was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had mentioned “Nil” in the invoice column and had not enclosed the relevant invoices.

2. The petitioner is a registered Micro and Small Enterprise. The second respondent was awarded certain contract works by IRCON International Limited at Rangpo, Sikkim. Initially, the work was subcontracted to SSA Nirmal Private Limited, which, by a work order dated 05.01.2022, engaged the petitioner to execute Geotrail Wall and Soil Nailing works. Acting on the work order, the petitioner mobilised machinery, equipment, manpower and engineering resources from Tamil Nadu to Sikkim and commenced the work on 23.01.2022.

3. Subsequently, the subcontract was transferred from SSA Nirmal Private Limited to the third respondent. However, respondents 2 and 3 requested the petitioner to continue the work and assured it that a fresh work order would be issued.

4. According to the petitioner, the promised work order was never issued and it was later prevented from continuing the work. The petitioner repeatedly demanded payment for the work already executed through several emails, but no payment was made. The petitioner therefore approached the first respondent by filing a petition under Section 18 of the Act.

5. The first respondent rejected the petition by the impugned order.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides.

7. Along with the petition under Section 18 of the Act, the petitioner produced its MSME Registration Certificate, the original work order issued by SSA Nirmal Private Limited, the draft work order issued by the third respondent, the relevant correspondence exchanged between the parties, including emails demanding payment, and the measurement book. There is no provision under the Act or the Rules requiring a claimant to produce invoices as a condition precedent for maintaining a petition under Section 18. The documents produced by the petitioner are sufficient to enable the Council to examine the claim.

8. Section 18 of the Act provides that whenever a reference is made regarding an amount due under Section 17, the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council shall first conduct conciliation by itself or through an institution providing alternate dispute resolution services. If the conciliation fails, the Council shall either itself act as an arbitrator or refer the dispute for arbitration. The dispute is required to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 18 of the Act.

9. In the present case, instead of following the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 18, the first respondent rejected the petition at the threshold solely on the ground that invoices were not enclosed. Such a course is not contemplated under the Act. The impugned order is therefore contrary to the provisions of the MSMED Act and cannot be sustained.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.03.2026 is quashed. The first respondent is directed to entertain the petition filed by the petitioner and proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. The entire proceedings shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal