M/S ULTRA GEO CONSULTANTS v. M/S TECHPRO ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.
A227/5228/2025 · 2025-05-25
Piyush Agrawal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 58877 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 58877 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89329 Court No. - 10 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5228 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Ultra Geo Consultants Respondent :- M/S Techpro Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Counsel for Petitioner :- Naman Agarwal,Nipun Singh Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
1. Heard Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By means of instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the Commercial Court, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.48 of 2025; whereby an application for waiver for pre- deposit has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a partnership firm consisting of two partners. He further submits that the petitioner was awarded a work order for Kohima to Nagaland/Manipur border Section of NH-150 in Nagaland and the same was signed and accepted by the Managing Director of the petitioner. Further, another work order for investigation and widening up-gradation to two lanes of NH 301; Kargil- Zanskar Road in the State of Jammu and Kashmir was awarded on 01.06.2016, which was also signed and accepted by the incumbent Managing Director of the firm. Thereafter, upon realizing that Mr. Arvind Garg, M.D. of the respondent company was not operating in the best interests of the partnership firm, and sought for return of equipments of the company, which were in his possession. Thereupon, some dispute arose and a criminal complaint was filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, vide its reply dated 05.03.2022, brought on record the correct factual position and raised an objection against the maintainability of the claim filed by the respondent as the relationship does between the parties did not fall within the purview of the definition of buyer and supplier under the MSMED Act, 2006. 4. However, the Divisional Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Kanpur vide its award dated 14.03.2024, allowed the claim of the respondent company by directing the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 39,70,275/- as the principal amount and Rs. 95,44,013/- as interest, totalling Rs. 1,35,14,288/-. Being aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner moved an application
under Section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006 before the Commercial Court, Kanpur Nagar, which was registered as Case No.48 of
2025. 4.
He further submits that along with the aforesaid application, an application 18C seeking exemption from the depositing 75% of the awarded amount as a pre-requisite, but the aforesaid applications have been rejected by passing an ex-parte order dated 09.04.2025. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below has erred in law in rejecting the application for waiver as the petitioner could not appear on the said date. He further submits that the court below ought to have adjourned the matter instead of rejecting the application on merit. 6. He further submits that the financial condition of the petitioner is not good as well as not in a position to deposit 75% of the awarded amount, and therefore, the application was filed. He prays that the order impugned be set aside and the matter may be remanded for fresh consideration. 7. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record. 8. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner moved an application for waiver, in support whereof, petitioner has only filed an affidavit, but no supporting evidence has been brought on record showing his financial health not good enough to deposit 75% of the awarded amount. 9. On a pointed query put to the counsel for the petitioner as to what material has been brought on record showing its inability in making the pre-requisite deposit, but in vain. 10. Further, neither before the court below nor before this Court any material has been brought on record to show its inability in making the requisite amount as required under the Act. 11. In view of the above, no interference is called for by this Court in the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Pravesh Mishra Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad