Jenendra Medicos Private Limited v. Union Of India & ORS.

$~119 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + JENENDRA MEDICOS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Parmod Kumar Bhardwaj and Ms. Neeshu Singh, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with Mr.

Kamal Digpaul and Ms. Ishita Pathak, Advocates for UoI.

Mr. Amit Dayal, Advocate for R-5.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

O R D E R

% 17.05.2024 1.

The Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the decision of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) in referring the dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.5 to the Arbitration under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED), Act, 2006.

2.

Material on record discloses that Respondent No.5 supplies medicines to the Petitioner. A dispute arose between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.5 and, thereafter, the Respondent No.5 approached the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) for reference under the MSMED Act and the dispute has been referred by the MSEFC to arbitration. An Arbitrator has been appointed and the matter is pending before the Arbitrator.

3.

The short question which arises for consideration is whether the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

reference made by the MSEFC is valid or not.

4.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner draws attention of this Court to an Office Memorandum dated 27.06.2017 issued by Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, GoI which is being reproduced below:

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

5.

A perusal of the abovementioned Office Memorandum indicates that wholesale and retail trade and repair of motor vehicle and motorcycles and wholesale trade except of motor vehicles and motor cycles are outside the purview of the definition of service in accordance with Section 7 of the MSMED Act, 2006.

6.

Since the retail trade is outside the purview of the MSMED Act, the present dispute between the parties which arises out of supply of medicines will fall outside the purview of the definition of service in accordance with The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Section 7 of the MSMED Act, 2006, and therefore, even though the Respondent No.5 which might be a service provider in other avenues cannot avail of the benefit of MSMED Act.

7.

In view of the above, the reference made by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) in referring the dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.5 to the Arbitration under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED), Act, 2006 is, therefore, is not correct.

8.

The writ petition is allowed. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. It is always open for the Respondent No.5 to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for recovery of money. 9.

Needless to state the time period from the date of Respondent No.5 approached the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) till the date of the present Order will be excluded while calculating the period of limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J MAY 17, 2024 S. Zakir The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.