Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010182502024 2026:GAU-AS:14617 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4607/2024 ANKUR PHUKAN S/O- LATE BIREN PHUKAN, R/O- KHEREMIA GAON, NEAR- PETROL PUMP, P.O.- PARBATPUR, P.S.- NAMRUP, DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH, PIN- 786623, ASSAM. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, UDYOG BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 110011. 2:CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR BRIDGE AND ROOF COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE REGISTERED OFFICE- KANKARIA CENTRE 2/1 RUSSEL STREET 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR KOLKATA- 700071. 3:DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (COORDINATORO) NORTH-EAST BRIDGE AND ROOF COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE Page No.# 2/8 CAMP SITE- MAFL APL PROJECT SITE NAMRUP DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786623 ASSAM. ZONAL OFFICE- KAMAKHYA TOWER 8TH FLOOR G.S. ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI- 781005 ASSAM. 4:ASSISTANT CONSTRUCTION MANAGER BRIDGE AND FLOOR COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE CAMP SITE- MAFL APL PROJECT SITE NAMRUP DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786623 ASSAM. ZONAL OFFICE- KAMAKHYA TOWER 8TH FLOOR G.S. ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI- 781005 ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) : Dr. B. N. Gogoi, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Kejriwal, Advocate · Date on which Judgment was reserved : NA · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 29.09.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : Yes · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : NA Page No.# 3/8 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Dr. B. N. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. K. Kejriwal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 2. The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the Respondent Authorities more particularly the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to pay the outstanding arrear of contractual bills amounting to Rs.3,12,42,652/- along with interest @ 24% per annum and other taxable liabilities to the Petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the instant case are that the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 was awarded a contract by the Assam Petrochemicals Ltd. for civil and structural works for 500 TPD Methanol and 200 TPD Formalin plant project of Assam Petrochemicals Limited at Namrup, Assam. 4. The scope of the work was for construction of all civil, structural and U/G piping works of methanol unit, civil works for tank farm, foundation, cooling tower, substation, control room, and satellite rack from rack room building for 500 TPD and 200 TPD formalin project, Assam. Page No.# 4/8 5. The Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 thereupon subcontracted a portion of their contract to the Petitioner and issued a work order on 18.05.2018. The subcontract which was granted in favour of the Petitioner was based upon a Notice Inviting Tender containing various terms and conditions. 6. The General Conditions of the Contract of the Respondent No.2 is Annexure-III to the said Notice Inviting Tender. It included various terms and conditions as well as how a dispute can be resolved. 7. Clause 29 of the said General Conditions of the Contract stipulates that in the event of any dispute arising between the company and the contractor concerning the interpretation of any terms and conditions of the contract and/or contractual obligations/performance/liabilities/ responsibilities of the parties to the contract, the disputing party shall refer the matter to the other party for holding a mutual discussion for resolving the dispute. In the case, the parties fail to arrive at any settlement through mutual discussions, either of the parties may avail a resolution of the dispute through conciliation or a resolution of the dispute through arbitration. It is further mentioned in the said Clause that the arbitration proceedings shall be governed under the Arbitration and Page No.# 5/8 Conciliation Act, 1996. Apart from that, the venue of the arbitration shall be such which would be mutually decided by the parties. 8. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner was issued various work orders and in pursuance to the completion of the works, the Petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.3,12,42,652/- from the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 after taking into account the payments which have been already paid by the Respondents in the running account bills. It is also the claim of the Petitioner that the Petitioner is an MSME and as such, would be entitled to interest in terms with the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006 (for short ‘the Act of 2006’). 9. This Court also takes note of that after the notice was issued, the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have filed affidavit-in-opposition wherein contested the proceedings by disputing the claim of the Petitioner. 10. Mr. K. Kejriwal, the learned counsel further referring to the various paragraphs of the affidavit-in-opposition, submitted that an amount of Rs.1,41,85,019/- has been withheld by the Assam Petrochemicals Limited on account of non-compliance to the labour cess, royalty, and HR & Admin related default. The learned counsel Page No.# 6/8 has also submitted that there also exists subsisting disputes and discrepancies in respect to the bills and work challans submitted by the writ petitioner, inasmuch as some of the challans are back- dated and some are issued even prior to the work order referred to therein being issued. 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner on the other hand submitted that there is a clear-cut admission on the part of the Respondents thereby certifying the amount payable to the Petitioner as on 03.04.2024 as would be seen from Annexure- 33 and therefore, the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 cannot now dispute the said claim. 12. From a perusal of the materials on record, it is apparent that there are various factual disputes as to the entitlement of the Petitioner. 13. This Court now finds it relevant to take note of that though there is an arbitration clause, but in view of the Act of 2006, whenever there is a dispute as regards payment of the dues to an MSME, such dispute can be referred to the Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council. In terms with Section 18 of the said Act of 2006, it provides a scope for mediation in terms with the Page No.# 7/8 Mediation Act, 2023, and upon failure, such dispute can be referred to arbitration which can be decided either by the Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council or referred to any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services for such arbitration. 14. In view of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that as there are certain factual disputes raised as to the entitlement of the Petitioner and the Petitioner being an MSME as claimed by the Petitioner, such dispute can be resolved by way of Section 18 of the Act of 2006. 15. Accordingly, this Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions: (i) In view of disputed questions of facts being raised as regards the Entitlement of the Petitioner to the amount claimed by the Petitioner, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition. (ii) The parties herein are referred to settlement of dispute in terms with Section 18 of the Act of 2006 provided the Petitioner is still registered as an MSME. Page No.# 8/8 (iii) It is further observed that in the circumstance, the Petitioner is no longer registered as MSME, liberty is given to both the parties to settle the disputes in terms with Clause 29 of the General Conditions of Contract of the Respondent No.2. (iv) No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Bijoy Saha Digitally signed by Bijoy Saha Date: 2026.09.30 19:16:30 +05'30'