{"id":292783,"date":"2023-05-22T16:00:51","date_gmt":"2023-05-22T10:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=292783"},"modified":"2023-05-22T12:40:04","modified_gmt":"2023-05-22T07:10:04","slug":"calcutta-high-court-dismissed-writ-petition-ground-of-maintainability-scc-blog-legal-reseach-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/22\/calcutta-high-court-dismissed-writ-petition-ground-of-maintainability-scc-blog-legal-reseach-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Supplier can refer to MSME Facilitation Council for adjudication despite post-contract MSME registration: Calcutta High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Calcutta High Court<\/span> | While deciding a writ petition seeking to set aside an arbitral proceeding, Moushumi Bhattacharya*<\/span>, J. held that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (the Act, 1996). The Court further held that the supplier is statutorily entitled to make a reference to the Council for adjudication of the disputes even if its MSME registration is after the date of Contract entered between the parties.<\/p>\n

Brief facts<\/p>\n

In the instant matter, petitioner 1 (buyer) and respondent 2 – claimant (supplier) entered into a transactions in 2013 and respondent 2 admittedly supplied goods in terms of the transactions entered into between the parties. Respondent 2 registered an arbitration case against the petitioners. The petitioner preferred a petition before this Court seeking to set aside all proceedings initiated or being conducted by the Facilitation Council under the Arbitration Case.<\/p>\n

Submissions<\/p>\n

The petitioners contended that the Council cannot act both as a conciliator as well as an arbitrator; therefore, the arbitration proceeding before the Council is liable to be quashed. The petitioners further contended that the registration of the respondent 2 under the MSMED Act is after the date of the transaction and therefore, the claim of the respondent 2 as a supplier is not maintainable.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, the respondent 2 raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition and contended that the petitioners have an alternative and adequate statutory remedy under the Act, 1996 and therefore they cannot seek a mandamus for quashing of the arbitration proceedings pending before the Council.<\/p>\n

Moot Point<\/p>\n