Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12205 Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17132 of 2024 Petitioner :- Cute Products India Respondent :- Regency Cycles Pvt. Ltd. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Manisha Chaturvedi,Smt. Chandra Kala Chaturvedi,Vivek Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- Siddharth Singhal Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. Heard Ms. Manisha Chaturvedi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1. 2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Meerut Zone, Meerut (hereinafter referred as "MSEFC".) 3. The petitioner, before this Court, is the purchaser of the goods supplied by respondent no. 1 in the year 2019. As the payment was not made to respondent no. 1/supplier, respondent no. 1 approached MSEFC and conciliation proceedings were started in the year 2023. Reference under Section 18 of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter called as "the Act of 2006") was made on 16.06.2023 to Council. The petitioner was put to notice as the matter being pending before the Council and the said fact was intimated through e-mail by Council as well as respondent no. 1 on 03.06.2023. Registered notice was also sent which was delivered on 23.06.2023. The Council had also issued registered notice which was also received by the petitioner. The petitioner did not appear before the Council on the said date and an order was passed by Council granting time to file statement of defence and in case it was not filed the Council was to proceed with making the award as per available records. Thereafter, on 21.09.2023, the Council again sent an e-mail as well as registered notice was sent intimating the petitioner that the next date fixed in the matter was 31.10.2023. Notice by post was received/delivered to petitioner on 03.10.2023. The respondent/supplier also sent an e-mail and registered post intimating the date to petitioner which was also served. On 31.10.2023, again petitioner did not appear nor filed his statement of defence in spite of notice having been served. The Council recorded the said fact and held that as a last opportunity, 15 days' time is granted for filing defence statement and any failure in doing so would lead to invocation of Section 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as "the Act of 1996"). 4. The Council on 02.03.2024 through e-mail informed the petitioner about the next date which was fixed as 05.03.2024 and on that date the petitioner had appeared but no statement of defence was filed and the Council proceeded with the matter and on the documents available on the record reserved for an award. 5. After the Council had reserved for an award, the statement of defence was filed by petitioner on 27.03.2024. Hence, the present writ petition. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite their appearance on 05.03.2024 and statement of defence having been filed on 27.03.2024, the Council is proceeding to make an award without hearing them. It is further contended that Section 25 mandates that before proceeding to make an award in case the party has failed to appear, the court should have recorded that matter would be heard ex-parte. Reliance has been placed upon decision of Delhi High Court rendered in case of M/s Radharamana Capital Services Pvt Ltd vs. M/s Jaypee Capital Services Ltd, OMP No. 673 of 2009, decided on 30.11.2012. Learned counsel further laid stress on the fact that only two dates were fixed in the matter and once the petitioner came to know about the fact that the matter is fixed for 05.03.2024, the petitioner appeared through his counsel and sought time for filing statement of defence which has been denied by Council nor the contention made before Facilitation Council was recorded in the order impugned and the same was uploaded on the website of the Council on 15.04.2024. 7. Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 submitted that the notice was sent to petitioner through e- mail address provided by the petitioner and it is the same e-mail address through which the statement of defence was served upon respondent no. 1/supplier. He has invited attention of the Court to page 23 to 34 of the counter affidavit wherein the correspondence made with petitioner through e-mail as well as postal tracking report has been appended demonstrating the fact that notice sent to petitioner was served from time to time either by supplier/respondent no. 1 or by the Council but the petitioner had deliberately avoided to present at the time of hearing before the Facilitation Council which ultimately led to reserving of the award on the basis of the material available on record. He has relied upon the provisions of Section 23(4) of the Act of 1996 which mandates that statement of claim and defense shall be completed within a period of six months from the date the arbitrator or all the arbitrators, as the case may be, received notice, in writing, of their appointment. According to him, the reference was registered on 16.06.2023 and the time started running from that date. According to him, almost a year has elapsed but the proceedings have not been completed under the Act of 2006. 8. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. The object and reason for enacting the Act of 2006 was to provide expeditious disposal of the commercial disputes between the parties especially for the small scale industries and to facilitate the economic growth in the country. Section 2(m) of the Act defines, "small enterprises" which means an enterprise classified as such under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) or sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 7. Section 2(n) defines "supplier" which means a micro or small enterprise, which has filed a memorandum with the authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 8, and includes,- (i) the National Small Industries Corporation, being a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (ii) the Small Industries Development Corporation of a State or a Union territory, by whatever name called, being a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956; (iii) any company, co-operative society, trust or a body, by whatever name called, registered or constituted under any law for the time being in force and engaged in selling goods produced by micro or small enterprises and rendering services which are provided by such enterprises. 10. Section 18 provides for a reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council in regard to any dispute for recovery of amount due under Section 17. It further provides that provisions of the Act of 1996 would apply to such dispute. In the instant case, initially conciliation proceedings were initiated which could not fructify which led to filing of the reference under Section 18 which was registered on 16.06.2023. 11. The Act of 1996 prescribes the time limit under Section 23(4) for filing of the claim as well as the statement of defence within a period of six months, from the date of appointment of the Arbitrator. In the instant case, after the reference was registered, the first date was fixed as 27.06.2023 which was intimated to petitioner both by supplier/respondent no. 1 as well as Council through e-mail as well as registered post. 12. Both the e-mail and registered post was delivered well prior to the date fixed in the matter. The petitioner never appeared on the date fixed. Subsequently, the matter was fixed before Facilitation Council on 31.10.2023 and again notice prior to the date fixed was sent both by Council as well as respondent no. 1 which was served well in advance to petitioner. 13. Again on 31.10.2023, the petitioner failed to appear before the Council. On both dates, the Council had recorded that in case statement of defence is not filed by petitioner within 15 days from the date of passing of the order, the Council would be left with no option but to proceed with the matter and make an award as per the Act. 14. On 31.10.2023, the Council had specifically passed an order that it would proceed in the matter under Section 25 of the Act of 1996 in case of failure on the part of the petitioner to file statement of defence. The petitioner did not appear nor filed statement of defence within the time limit fixed on 31.10.2023. 15. The notice for the next date was well served upon the petitioner and on that date petitioner appeared through his counsel. The statement of defence was not filed nor any document was filed seeking extension of time for filing statement of defence. Rather the statement of defence was filed on 27.03.2024 when the award was reserved by Council. 16. The argument made by petitioner's counsel that the contention of the petitioner's counsel was not recorded by Council and the order was uploaded on the website after more than one month does not appeal to the Court as the petitioner was in constant default for last one year and was not appearing before the Council and when the last opportunity was closed, and the Council was going to make an award and proceeded in terms of Section 25 of the Act of 1996 that petitioner appeared through video conferencing on 05.03.2024, without making any effort to get the matter decided and his approach was only to delay. The filing of statement of defence on 27.03.2024 is an indicator to the fact that the petitioner wants to linger on the matter being a commercial dispute and has to pay the amount for the goods supplied by respondent no. 1. 17. The basic object of the Act of 2006 is the speedy disposal of the commercial disputes between the parties and lingering on the matter for long would lead to closure of small businesses in the country. The very object of the Act would stand frustrated in case such unnecessary adjournments are granted to the parties who are under huge liability to pay the supplier. In the instant case, the petitioner is playing hide and seek and deliberately avoiding to appear before the Council. The judgment relied upon by petitioner's counsel of Delhi High Court is distinguishable in the facts of the present case. 18. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that no interference is required in the order dated 05.03.2024. 19. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 23.1.2025//V.S.Singh Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad