Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1910 - DELHI HIGH COURTPrinciples of natural justice - whether the proceedings before the Council that culminated in making the impugned reference can be at fault as being violative of the principles of natural justice? - Held that:- RIL can have no grievance of not being afforded sufficient opportunity to put forth its case. Representatives of RIL also attended the next conciliation meeting, which was held on 05.04.2016. On the said occasion, RIL sought further time to settle the disputes amicably. However, no further progress was made and, therefore, on 17.10.2016, the Council decided to terminate the conciliation proceedings and refer the disputes to DIAC - RIL’s contention that the impugned reference was made in violation of the principles of natural justice is wholly unmerited. Whether the impugned reference made by the Council under Section 18(3) of the Act was without jurisdiction? - scope of micro/small enterprise - Held that:- There is no dispute that GCIL would fall within the definition of micro/small enterprise even at the material time when it had executed the contract with RIL. GCIL is a company and the services provided by GCIL are clearly services rendered by a micro/small enterprise and, therefore, GCIL, being engaged in supply of services rendered by a micro/small enterprise, would fall within the fourth category of entities that are included as a ‘supplier’: that is, a company, co-operative society, trust or a body engaged in selling goods produced by micro or small enterprises or rendering services provided by such enterprises. It is not necessary for such entities to have filed the Memorandum under Section 8(1) of the Act. The contention that the entities falling under Section 2(n)(iii) of the Act are only those entities that source goods/services from other micro/small enterprises, is not persuasive as it is difficult to accept that an entity sourcing goods/services from a third party micro/small enterprise would be ‘supplier’ but would cease to be one if it sources the same from its undertaking. The contention that the impugned reference is without jurisdiction is unmerited - petition dismissed.
|