← Library
Madras High CourtWP/28299/2025allowed

P.S.Textiles v. The Chairperson

2025-08-13Honourable Mrs.Justice N. Mala7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13-08-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA P.S.Textiles Rep. By Proprietor, S Balasubramanian, No.60/277 Bharathi Nagar, Ammapalayam, Anupparpalayam (Post), Thirupur - 641 652.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Chairperson Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC), Office Of The Industries Commissioner And Director Of Industries And Commerce, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

2.The Secretary Regional Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitaiton Council, District Industries Centre, Coimbatore. 3.M/s. SAANVI INDUSTRIES (SAANVI CLOTHING PVT LTD), Rep By it Proprietor Mr. Jinal Dhiren Rathore, Plot No. 450 Veerabhadrapalaya, Vasundhara Layout Near Kcop Circle, Doddaballapur, Neelamangala Road, Doddaballapura, Bangalore 561203.

Respondent(s) 1/7

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to amend the MSME order No. MSEFC/CBER/212/2021, dated 11.11.2022, by substituting the 3 rd respondent's correct address in Bangalore, in place of the residential address in Mumbai, based on Petitioner's representation dated 27.05.2025, within a stipulated time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.V.Anandhamoorthy For Respondent(s):

Mr.V.Manoharan, AGP for R1 and R2

ORDER

The above writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to amend the MSME order No. MSEFC/CBER/212/2021 dated 11.11.2022, by substituting the 3 rd respondent's correct address in Bangalore, in place of the residential address Mumbai, based on petitioner's representation dated 27.05.2025, within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

2. The petitioner is a registered Small Enterprise under the MSMED Act, 2006. The petitioner is engaged in manufacture and export of knitted garments. 2/7

The petitioner states that it supplied textile fabrics to the 3 rd respondent between 01.11.2017 and 22.10.2018 under 21 invoices, for a total value of Rs.60,57,800/-. The petitioner states that out of the said amount, Rs.18,90,000/- remained unpaid despite the petitioner's repeated requests. As the 3 rd respondent failed to pay the amount of Rs.18,90,000/- to the petitioner, the petitioner filed an application in Application No. TN28A0071519/M/00091, before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (1 st and 2 nd respondents herein) under Section 18(1) of the MSMED Act. The petitioner states that the Council after hearing, passed a final order on 11.11.2022, directing the 3 rd respondent to pay the principal amount of Rs.18,90,000/- along with compound interest as per Sections 15 and 16 of the Act.

The petitioner states that, when he received the final order, he was shocked to note that in the final order, the 3 rd respondent's residential address in Mumbai was mentioned instead of his business address in Bangalore, to which address the summons and notices were served. The petitioner therefore submitted repeated representations to the 1 st respondent requesting him to correct the errors.

Bangalore, rendering the award ineffective. The petitioner therefore left with no other remedy filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

3. I heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record. By consent of both counsels, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

4. It is seen from the summons, issued by the 1 st respondent in the section 18[1] proceedings that the business address of the 3 rd respondent in Bangalore was mentioned and the summons served to the aforesaid address was received by the 3 rd respondent. Pursuant to the receipt of the summons, the 3 rd respondent appeared in the Council meeting held on 21.09.2022, however, the rd respondent neither filed counter nor appeared for the subsequent hearings, as is evident from the order dated 11.11.2022 of the 1 st respondent. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the 3 rd respondent pursuant to the summons issued to his Bombay address, appeared for hearing on 21.09.2022. Therefore, the petitioner is justified in submitting that the residential address mentioned in the 4/7

final order needs to be changed to the business address in Bangalore, as it will facilitate the petitioner to effectively initiate execution proceedings.

5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the fact that the petitioner cannot file the execution proceedings in Bangalore, based on the address of the 3 rd respondent given in the final award, I am inclined to issue direction to the respondents 1 and 2, to amend the MSME order dated 11.11.2022, by rectifying the 3 rd respondent's address, as stated in the summons dated 26.10.2022, within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

dsn 13-08-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes 5/7

To 1.The Chairperson Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council , Office Of The Industries Commissioner And Director Of Industries And Commerce, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

2.The Secretary Regional Micro Small Enterprises Facilitaiton Council, District Industries, Centre, Coimbatore 6/7

N.MALA J.

dsn 13-08-2025 7/7