Sasan Power Limited, Singrauli versus Madhya Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council & another

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

WRIT PETITION, 8963 of 2020, Judgment Date: Dec 31, 2020

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 -Section 17 and 18- the reference to the Council- the provision is beneficent in nature and, therefore, must be given wide construction. The respondent No.2’s reference was rightly entertained by the Council. More so, when objections (Annexure P/6 & P/10) filed by the petitioner regarding jurisdiction of council is not pregnant with a factual objection regarding non filing of memorandum by respondent No.2 under Section 8 of the Act.

Section 18 of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 - the requirement of Udyog Aadhar memorandum of the State where Council is situated- the argument is repelled in view of the legislative intent and the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court. If the unit is located within the jurisdiction of Council, the Council is competent to entertain the dispute. Non filing of memorandum under Section 8 of the Act of 2006 is inconsequential.

Remedial provision - In construing a remedial statute the Courts ought to give to it “the widest operation which its language will permit. They have only to see that the particular case is within the mischief to be remedied and falls within the language of the enactment.” The words of such a statute must be so construed as “to give the most complete remedy which the phraseology will permit,” so as “to secure that the relief contemplated by the statute shall not be denied to the class intended to be relieved.

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 & Interpretation- It is a beneficent provision and the literal construction of statute alone will defeat the purpose of enactment. The text and context both are required to be seen.

Article 226/227 of the Constitution - the different High Courts have taken different views about interpretation of Section 18 of Act of 2006. The impugned orders of Council are in consonance with the orders passed by certain High Courts. Thus, the view so taken in the impugned orders is a plausible view which cannot be interfered with merely because another view is possible.

Section 18(3) of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006- Shri C.K. Minj, Government Member, had acted as a Conciliator. The Court observed that it will be open to the council to proceed with the arbitration proceedings by excluding Shri Minj or refer the matter for arbitratrion to any other institute or center providing alternative dispute resolution service.

Sasan Power Limited, Singrauli versus Madhya Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council & another