Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
2023 (5) TMI 1396 - HC - Indian LawsChallenge to order dated 11.6.2019 passed by U.P. State Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council - Section 18(3) of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act 2006 - HELD THAT - The legislature has enacted Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 for a special purpose that is to facilitate the promotion development and to enhance the competitiveness of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto and that is why Section 24 of the Act of 2006 provides that Sections 15 to 23 of the Act of 2006 shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. The aforesaid Act of 2006 contains various provisions to deal with Micro Small and Medium Enterprises and therefore the Act of 2006 is a special law dealing with Micro Small and Medium Enterprises and for that purpose Section 24 of the Act of 2006 has given overriding effect to Sections 15 to 23 of the Act of 2006. The provisions under 18 of the Act of 2006 have overriding effect in view of the provisions contained in Section 24 of the Act of 2006. The legislature in Section 18(2) of the Act of 2006 has categorically provided that the Council may either itself act as a Conciliator or may refer the matter for conciliation to any institution providing alternate dispute resolution services and the procedure of conciliation proceedings will be carried out as per Sections 65 to 81 of the Act of 1996. Thereafter the legislature under Section 18(3) of the Act of 2006 has given absolute discretion to the Council that in the event of failure of the conciliation proceedings either Council itself can proceed to arbitrate the dispute between the parties or Council may refer the arbitration to an institution providing alternate dispute resolution services and it has been further provided that during such arbitration the provisions of the Act of 1996 will be applicable. The Act of 2006 is a special law and in view of the provisions made in Section 24 of the said Act the discretion given to Council under Section 18(3) of the Act of 2006 for selecting the forum of arbitration between the parties has overriding effect and therefore at the stage of selection of forum for arbitration by the Council the prohibition contained in Section 80 of the Act of 1996 will not be applicable. The legislature has enacted a special law in the form of Act of 2006 containing the special provisions in respect of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises and further the legislature has given overriding effect to Sections 15 to 23 of the Act of 2006. Thus the discretion given to Facilitation Council under Section 18(3) of the Act of 2006 in respect of selection of forum of arbitration between the parties is absolute and has overriding effect to any other law. Therefore in the event of conciliation proceedings being carried out by the Council and on its failure the Council itself can proceed to arbitrate the dispute between the parties and the prohibition contained in Section 80 of the Act of 1996 will have no application in exercise of the said discretion by the Council. The legislature has framed special law in the form of Act of 2006 to deal with various kinds of issues involved in the functioning of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises and therefore the legislature under the Act of 2006 has provided for constitution of the Facilitation Council comprising of the experts of the field of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises and therefore it is absolutely misconceived on the part of the petitioners to argue that the Facilitation Council is not well equipped to carry out the arbitration of the dispute between the petitioners and Respondent No.2. Thus the said argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners lacks merit and is rejected. There are no illegality or infirmity in the orders dated 11.6.2019 and 24.7.2019 passed by the Facilitation Council in Claim Petition No.402 of 2019 - the writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed.
|