Supreme Court of India
M/S. SILPI INDUSTRIES ETC.versusKERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. ETC.
- Citation
- 2021 INSC 314
- Decided
- 29 June 2021
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ASHOK BHUSHAN
Holding
The Limitation Act, 1963 applies to arbitrations under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act and counter‑claims are maintainable under Section 23(2A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Summary
The case concerned disputes arising under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) where a supplier (Silpi Industries) claimed unpaid amounts from Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and the corporation raised counter‑claims. The issues before the Supreme Court were whether the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to arbitrations conducted under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act and whether a counter‑claim is maintainable in such arbitration proceedings. The Court held that Section 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 makes the Limitation Act applicable to these arbitrations, and that Section 23(2A) of the 1996 Act permits the respondent to file a counter‑claim or set‑off. It further observed that the MSMED Act, being a special beneficial statute, overrides the general arbitration law where necessary, and that denying counter‑claims would defeat the Act's purpose. However, the appellant’s claim for benefit under the MSMED Act was rejected because it was not registered as a micro‑small enterprise at the time of contract performance. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
Issues considered
- The Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, 2006.
- The maintainability of a counter‑claim in arbitration proceedings initiated under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, 2006.
Legislation cited
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996s. 11(6), s. 23(2A), s. 43, s. 65-81, s. 7(1)
- Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015s. 23(2A)
- Limitation Act, 1963
- Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006s. 15, s. 16, s. 17, s. 18(2), s. 18(3), s. 24, s. 8
Subjects
Limitation ActArbitrationCounter‑claimMSMED ActSection 18(3)Section 23(2A)Arbitration and Conciliation ActBeneficial legislationMicro, Small and Medium Enterprises
Judgment
1044 [2021]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 3 S.C.R. 1044 [2021] 3 S.C.R.
A M/S. SILPI INDUSTRIES ETC.
v.
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
& ANR. ETC.
B (Civil Appeal Nos. 1570-1578 of 2021)
JUNE 29, 2021
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Limitation Act, 1963: Applicability to proceedings under AC
Act, 1996 arising out of MSMED Act, 2006 – Held: Limitation Act
C
is applicable to arbitration covered by s.18(3) of the MSMED Act,
2006 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Micro, Small and
Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 – s.18(3).
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006:
s.18(3) – Maintainability of counter claim in arbitration proceedings
D
initiated as per s.18(3) of MSMED Act – Held: In view of s.23(2A)
of AC Act, 1996, counter claim/set off is maintainable – Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.23(2A).
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
E HELD: 1.1 The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
Development Act, 2006 was enacted to provide, for facilitating
the promotion and development and enhancing the
competitiveness of micro, small and medium enterprises and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. By bringing
the aforesaid Act (Act 27 of 2006) w.e.f. 16th June 2006, the earlier
F Act, namely, Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and
Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 was repealed by virtue
of Section 32 of the 2006 Act. [Para 16][1056-F-G]
1.2 From the Statement of Objects and Reasons of both
the above legislations, it is clear that the earlier legislation, i.e.,
G Act No.32 of 1993 was confined only with regard to delayed
payments to small scale and ancillary industrial undertakings but
by subsequent enactment of 2006, a comprehensive legislation
was brought covering the micro, small and medium enterprises.
[Para 17][1057-F-G]
H
1044
M/S. SILPI INDUSTRIES ETC. v. KERALA STATE ROAD 1045
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
1.3 As per Section 15 of the 2006 Act, where supplier A
supplies any goods or renders any services to any buyer, the
buyer shall make payment on or before the agreed date between
the parties in writing or where there is no agreement, before the
appointed day. Section 16 deals with date from which and rate of
interest payable in the event of not making the payment. The
B
recovery mechanism for the amount due is covered by Sections
17 and 18 of the said Act. If any party has a dispute with regard to
amount due under Section 17, a reference is required to be made
to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. On such
reference, the Council is empowered to conduct conciliation in
the matter or seek assistance of any institution or centre providing C
alternate dispute resolution services by making a reference to
such institution for conducting conciliation. If the conciliation is
not successful, as contemplated under Section 18(2) of the said
Act, same stands terminated under Section 18(3) of the said Act.
Thereafter, the Council shall either itself take up the dispute for
D
arbitration or refer it to any institution or centre providing
alternate dispute resolution services for such arbitration and the
provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are made
applicable as if the arbitration was in pursuance of arbitration
agreement between the parties, under sub-section (1) of Section
7 of the 1996 Act. Applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 to the E
arbitrations is covered by Section 43 of the 1996 Act. [Para
18][1065-E-H; 1066-A-B]
Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination Committee & Ors.
v. Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd. & Ors. (2016) 3 SCC
468 : [2015] 12 SCR 447 – affirmed. F
1.4 A reading of Section 43 itself makes it clear that the
Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to the arbitrations, as it applies
to proceedings in court. When the settlement with regard to a
dispute between the parties is not arrived at under Section 18 of
the 2006 Act, necessarily, the Micro and Small Enterprises G
Facilitation Council shall take up the dispute for arbitration under
Section 18(3) of the 2006 Act or it may refer to institution or
centre to provide alternate dispute resolution services and
provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 are made
applicable as if there was an agreement between the parties under
H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R.
A sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the 1996 Act. In view of the express
provision applying the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 to
arbitrations as per Section 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996. the High Court has rightly relied on the judgment in
the case of Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination Committee and
held that Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to the arbitration
B
proceedings under Section 18(3) of the 2006 Act. The provisions
of Limitation Act, 1963 will apply to the arbitrations covered by
Section 18(3) of the 2006 Act. [Para 18][1066-C-F]
2.1 The other issue is with regard to maintainability of
counter claim in the arbitration proceedings initiated as per
C Section 18(3) of the 2006 Act. Reading of Section 18(3) of the
2006 Act show that when the conciliation initiated under sub-
section (2) of Section 18 of the said Act is not successful, the
Council shall either itself take up the dispute for arbitration or
refer to any institution for arbitration. Further Section 18(3) of
D the said Act also makes it clear that the provisions of 1996 Act
are made applicable as if there is an agreement between the
parties under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the 1996 Act. Section
23 of the 1996 Act deals with the statement of claim and defence.
Section 23(2A), which gives a right to respondent to submit a
counter claim or plead set-off with regard to claims within the
E scope of the arbitration agreement, is brought into Statute by
Amending Act 3 of 2016. The Statement of Objects and Reasons
of the Amending Act, is also enacted to provide for speedy disposal
of cases relating to arbitration with least court intervention.
Clause 11 of the Bill, by which sub-section (2A) was proposed to
F be inserted, states that sub-section (2A) was intended to give an
opportunity to the respondent, in support of his case, to submit
counter-claim or a set-off if such counter-claim or set-off falls within
the scope of arbitration agreement. When Section 18(3) makes
it clear that in the event of failure by the Council under Section
18(2) if proceedings are initiated under Section 18(3) of the 1996
G Act, the provisions of 1996 Act are not only made applicable but
specific mention is made to the effect as if the arbitration was in
pursuance to an arbitration agreement referred to in sub-section
(1) of Section 7 of the 1996 Act. When there is a provision for
filing counter-claim and set-off which is expressly inserted in
H
M/S. SILPI INDUSTRIES ETC. v. KERALA STATE ROAD 1047
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Section 23 of the 1996 Act, there is no reason for curtailing the A
right of the respondent for making counter-claim or set-off in
proceedings before the Facilitation Council. [Paras 19, 20][1066-
G-H; 1068-G-H; 1069-A-D]
2.2 It is also further to be noted that if the counter-claim
made by the buyer in the proceedings arising out of claims made B
by the seller is not allowed, it may lead to parallel proceedings
before the various fora. On one hand, in view of beneficial
legislation, seller may approach the Facilitation Council for claims,
in the event of failure of payment by the buyer under provisions
of 2006 Act, at the same time, if there is no separate agreement
between the parties for any arbitration in a given case, buyer C
may approach the civil court for making claims against the seller,
or else if there is an agreement between the parties for arbitration
in the event of dispute between the parties, parties may seek
appointment of arbitrator. At the same time if the seller is covered
by definition under micro, small and medium enterprises, seller D
may approach the Facilitation Council for making claims under
the provisions of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
Development Act, 2006. In such event, it may result in conflicting
findings, by various forums. [Para 21][1069-E-G]
2.3 The obligations of the buyer to make payment, and E
award of interest at three times of the bank rate notified by
Reserve Bank in the event of delay by the buyer and the
mechanism for recovery and reference to Micro and Small
Enterprises Facilitation Council and further remedies under the
2006 Act for the party aggrieved by the awards, are covered by
Chapter V of the 2006 Act. The provisions of Section 15 to 23 of F
the Act are given overriding effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time
being in force. From the Statement of Objects and Reasons also
it is clear that it is a beneficial legislation to the small, medium
and micro sector. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a G
general law whereas the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
Development Act, 2006 is a special beneficial legislation which
is intended to benefit micro, small and medium enterprises
covered by the said Act. The Act of 2006 contemplates a statutory
H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R.
A arbitration when conciliation fails. A party which is covered by
the provisions of 2006 Act allows a party to apply to the Council
constituted under the Act to first conciliate and then arbitrate on
the dispute between it and other parties. There are fundamental
differences in the settlement mechanism under the 2006 Act and
the 1996 Act. The first difference is, the Council constituted under
B
the 2006 Act to undertake mandatory conciliation before the
arbitration which is not so under the 1996 Act. Secondly, in the
event of failure of conciliation under the 2006 Act, the Council or
the centre or institution is identified by it for arbitration. The
1996 Act allows resolution of disputes by agreed forum. The third
C difference is that, in the event of award in favour of seller and if
the same is to be challenged, there is a condition for pre-deposit
of 75% of the amount awarded. Such is not the case in the 1996
Act. When such beneficial provisions are there in the special
enactment, such benefits cannot be denied on the ground that
counter-claim is not maintainable before the Council. In any case,
D
whenever buyer wish to avoid the jurisdiction of the Council, the
buyer can do on the spacious plea of counter-claim, without
responding to the claims of the seller. When the provisions of
Sections 15 to 23 are given overriding effect under Section 24 of
the Act and further the 2006 Act is a beneficial legislation, even
E the buyer, if any claim is there, can very well subject to the
jurisdiction before the Council and make its claim/ counter claim
as otherwise it will defeat the very objects of the Act which is a
beneficial legislation to micro, small and medium enterprises.
Even in cases where there is no agreement for resolution of
disputes by way of arbitration, if the seller is a party covered by
F
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006,
if such party approaches the Council for resolution of dispute,
other party may approach the civil court or any other forum making
claims on the same issue. If two parallel proceedings are allowed,
it may result in conflicting findings. [Para 23][1070-C-H; 1071-
G A-D]
Edukanti Kistamma (Dead) through LRs. v.
S. Venkatareddy (Dead) through LRs. & Ors. (2010) 1
SCC 756 : [2009] 16 SCR 47 – relied on.
H
M/S. SILPI INDUSTRIES ETC. v. KERALA STATE ROAD 1049
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
2.4 It is clear that out of the two legislations, the provisions A
of MSMED Act will prevail, especially when it has overriding
provision under Section 24 thereof. Thus, this court holds that
MSMED Act, being a special Statute, will have an overriding effect
vis-à-vis Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is a general
Act. Even if there is an agreement between the parties for
B
resolution of disputes by arbitration, if a seller is covered by Micro,
Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, the seller
can certainly approach the competent authority to make its claim.
If any agreement between the parties is there, same is to be
ignored in view of the statutory obligations and mechanism
provided under the 2006 Act. Further, apart from the provision C
under Section 23(2A) of the 1996 Act, it is to be noticed that if
counter-claim is not permitted, buyer can get over the legal
obligation of compound interest at 3 times of the bank rate and
the “75% pre-deposit” contemplated under Sections 16 and 19
of the MSMED Act. On a harmonious construction of Section
D
18(3) of the 2006 Act and Section 7(1) and Section 23(2A) of the
1996 Act, counter-claim is maintainable before the statutory
authorities under MSMED Act. [Paras 23, 24][1071-D-H; 1072-
A]
3.1 In C.A.Nos.1620-1622 of 2021, the High Court, while
negating the plea of the appellant, on the maintainability of E
counter-claim, has allowed the application filed by the respondent
under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act and appointed the second
arbitrator. Though, counter-claim and set-off is maintainable before
the statutory authorities under MSMED Act, appellant in this
set of appeals is not entitled for the relief, for the reason that on F
the date of supply of goods and services the appellant did not
have the registration by submitting the memorandum as per
Section 8 of the Act. The bids were invited on 23.02.2010,
appellant submitted its bid on 17.05.2010, respondent awarded
contract to the appellant on 24.09.2010 and the parties signed
the contract documents for supply of material, installation/ G
commissioning of the power plant on 29.07.2011. Thereafter,
supplies were made and the appellant has raised first invoice on
02.11.2011 for supply contract and also raised the first invoice
pursuant to contract for installation on 07.07.2012 and the
appellant has raised the last invoice in furtherance of contract for
H
supply of material, on 29.03.2014. The appellant also claims to
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R.
A have raised last invoice on 29.03.2015 in furtherance of contract
for installation. It is to be noticed that appellant approached the
District Industrial Centre for grant of entrepreneur memorandum
only on 25.03.2015. [Para 25][1072-A-E]
GE T & D India Ltd. v. Reliable Engineering Projects
B and Marketing (2017) SCC OnLine Del 6978 –
distinguished.
3.2 Though the appellant claims the benefit of provisions
under MSMED Act, on the ground that the appellant was also
supplying as on the date of making the claim, as provided under
C Section 8 of the MSMED Act, but same is not based on any
acceptable material. In the present case, undisputed position is
that the supplies were concluded prior to registration of supplier.
To seek the benefit of provisions under MSMED Act, the seller
should have registered under the provisions of the Act, as on the
date of entering into the contract. In any event, for the supplies
D pursuant to the contract made before the registration of the unit
under provisions of the MSMED Act, no benefit can be sought
by such entity, as contemplated under MSMED Act. [Para
26][1072-E-F, G-H; 1073-A]
Shanti Conductors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Etc. v. Assam State
E Electricity Board & Ors. Etc. (2019) 19 SCC 529 –
referred to.
3.3 There is no acceptable material to show that, supply of
goods has taken place or any services were rendered, subsequent
to registration of appellant as the unit under MSMED Act, 2006.
F By taking recourse to filing memorandum under sub-section (1)
of Section 8 of the Act, subsequent to entering into contract and
supply of goods and services, one cannot assume the legal status
of being classified under MSMED Act, 2006, as an enterprise, to
claim the benefit retrospectively from the date on which appellant
entered into contract with the respondent. The appellant cannot
G
become micro or small enterprise or supplier, to claim the benefits
within the meaning of MSMED Act 2006, by submitting a
memorandum to obtain registration subsequent to entering into
the contract and supply of goods and services. If any registration
is obtained, same will be prospective and applies for supply of
H
M/S. SILPI INDUSTRIES ETC. v. KERALA STATE ROAD 1051
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
goods and services subsequent to registration but cannot operate A
retrospectively. Any other interpretation of the provision would
lead to absurdity and confer unwarranted benefit in favour of a
party not intended by legislation. [Para 26][1073-C-F]
3.4 It is also not in dispute that the appellant approached
the District Industrial Centre and filed entrepreneur memorandum B
under Section 8 of the MSMED Act 2006 only on 25.03.2015 and
later has approached the Council invoking the provisions of
MSMED Act by filing application under Section 18 of the Act. It
is the specific case of the respondent that the appellant has
abandoned the incomplete work having made deficient and
defective supplies in the month of February/March 2015. In that C
view of the matter, the appellant is not entitled to invoke the
provisions of Chapter V and seek reference to arbitration under
Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006. Further, as it is also not in
dispute that there is an agreement for arbitration between the
parties for resolution of disputes pursuant to their contract, as D
such, the High Court has rightly allowed the application filed by
the respondent under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act. [Para
17][1073-F-H; 1074-A]
M/s. B.H.P. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Director, Industries,
U.P. (Facilitation Centre), Kanpur & Ors. (2009) SCC E
OnLine All 565; M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. &
Anr. v. Micro, Small Enterprise Facilitation Council
(2010) SCC OnLine Bom 2208 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2015] 12 SCR 447 affirmed Para 18 F
[2009] 16 SCR 47 relied on Para 23
(2019) 19 SCC 529 referred to Para 25
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1570-
1578 of 2021. G
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.08.2017 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in Arbitration Appeal No. 69, 70, 72, 73, 77, 78,
79, 80 and 81 of 2014.
H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R.
A With
Civil Appeal Nos. 1620-1622 of 2021.
V. Giri, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Advs.,
Karthik S.D., John Mathew, Deepak Prakash, Nikhil Balan,
Ms. Divyangna Malik, Nitin, Nachiketa Vajpayee, Ms. Prerna Robin,
B Ms. Jessica Bhardwaj, Abhishek Bhati, P. B. Suresh, Vipin Nair, Karthik
Jayashankar, Arindam Ghosh, Anshuman Bahadur, V. N. Raghupathy,
Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
1. In view of the common issues which arise for consideration,
these appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common
judgment.
2. Civil Appeal Nos.1570-1578 of 2021 are filed, aggrieved by the
D common judgment dated 11.08.2017 passed in Arbitration Appeal Nos.69,
70, 72, 73, 77, 78, 79, 80 and 81 of 2014. By the aforesaid judgment,
High Court has allowed the Arbitration Appeals filed by the respondent
no.1-Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, by setting aside the
common order dated 05.08.2014 passed in O.P.(Arb.) Nos.258 of 2007
etc. and the awards passed by the arbitrator. The High Court has
E
remanded the matters to the arbitrator for disposal de novo in the light
of the observations made in the judgment.
3. Civil Appeal Nos.1620-1622 of 2021 are filed, aggrieved by the
order dated 06.09.2017 in O.P.No.617 of 2017, passed by the High Court
of Madras, allowing the Original Petition filed by the respondent under
F
Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the 1996 Act’) and the orders dated 31.10.2017 and
12.12.2017 passed in applications seeking interim directions.
4. Necessary facts in brief in the first batch of appeals referred
above are as under :
G
The respondent no.1-Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
(for short ‘KSRTC’), invited tenders for supply of thread rubber for tyre
rebuilding. The appellants herein who were the claimants before the
arbitrator were given purchase orders. As per the terms of the purchase
order, 90% of the total purchase price was payable to the appellants/
H
M/S. SILPI INDUSTRIES ETC. v. KERALA STATE ROAD 1053
TRANSPORT CORPORATION [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
claimants on supply of materials and the balance 10% was to be paid A
subject to final performance report. This was so, since it was the condition
that the thread rubber supplied by the appellants was to run a minimum
number of kilometers. When the 10% balance amount was not paid as
per the purchase order, the appellants/claimants herein have approached
the Industrial Facilitation Council [previously constituted under the Interest
B
on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial
Undertakings Act, 1993 (for short, ‘IDPASC Act’)] presently under the
Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council constituted under Micro,
Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the MSMED Act’). The earlier IDPASC Act was replaced
by MSMED Act and earlier Act was repealed. As the conciliation failed, C
the claims made by the appellants herein were referred to arbitration
under provisions of the 1996 Act. The awards were passed in favour of
the claimants and such awards were challenged by way of applications
for setting aside the same under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. When their
applications were dismissed, respondents have carried the matter by
D
way of appeals under Section 37 of the 1996 Act before the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam. The issues, which were formulated in paragraph
5 of the judgment and answered by the High Court, read as under:
“(a) Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to arbitration
proceedings held under the IDPASC and MSMED Acts?
E
(b) Which is the starting point of limitation to raise claim for the
10% unpaid purchase price?
(c) Whether counter claim is entertainable in the arbitration
proceedings held pursuant to the provisions of the IDPASC and
MSMED Acts?” F
5. In the impugned judgment, the High Court, while considering
the submissions of the parties and by referring to various provisions of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the provisions of the
Limitation Act, 1963, has answered the issue of limitation and held that
Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to the proceedings under the 1996 Act G
arising out of MSMED Act. While answering the third question with
regard to maintainability of counter claim, the High Court has held that
in view of Section 23(2A) of the 1996 Act, the ‘counter claim’ and ‘set
off’ are maintainable. While holding that counter claim is maintainable,
the High Court has agreed with the view taken by the learned Single
H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R.
A Judge of Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. B.H.P. Engineers
Pvt. Ltd. v. Director, Industries, U.P. (Facilitation Centre), Kanpur
& Ors.1 and the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Bombay
at Nagpur in the case of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Anr. v.
Micro, Small Enterprise Facilitation Council2. Primarily aggrieved
by the findings recorded by the High Court on the applicability of
B
Limitation Act, 1963 and maintainability of counter claim, the claimants
have filed these appeals on various grounds.
6. Necessary facts in Civil Appeal Nos.1620-1622 of 2021 are as
under :
C The appellant and respondent herein have entered into a contract
for supply and installation of hydro-mechanical equipments for 2 x 3
MW Baner-II SHP. The parties have signed an agreement on 27.03.2011,
containing various clauses. It is the case of the appellant that it has
completely executed the contract and project was commissioned on
27.06.2015. The appellant herein alleging that, though it has fulfilled all
D its obligations under the contract, the respondent has refused to make
payments as per the contract, has filed a Claim Petition, before the Micro
and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council constituted under the provisions
of MSMED Act, on 20.03.2017. The claim was filed in respect of supply
of goods and services rendered to the respondent-company. It is the
E case of the appellant that pursuant to notice issued by Facilitation Council,
the respondent appeared before the Council. Thereafter the respondent
has filed O.P.No.617 of 2017 before the High Court of Judicature at
Madras. The said application was filed under Section 11(6) of the 1996
Act praying for appointment of a second arbitrator to decide upon disputes
that have arisen between the parties pursuant to the breach of terms
F and conditions of contract for supply of hydro-mechanical equipments.
7. The said application filed by the respondent herein, is opposed
by the appellant mainly on the ground that it has already moved the
Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council for resolution of disputes,
as such, the respondent as well participate in the proceedings before the
G Council, prayed for dismissal of application filed under Section 11(6) of
the 1996 Act.
8. Before the High Court, it was the case of the respondent that
the Facilitation Council has been constituted primarily to deal with the
1
2009 SCC OnLine All 565
H 2
2010 SCC OnLine Bom 2208
M/S. SILPI INDUSTRIES ETC. v. KERALA STATE ROAD 1055
TRANSPORT CORPORATION [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
disputes that are raised by the supplier and does not envisage the laying A
of counter claim by other party to a contract, as such it can seek
appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act.
9. The High Court, while considering the definition of ‘supplier’
under Section 2(n) of MSMED Act and also by placing reliance on Section
17 and 18 of MSMED Act, has allowed the application and appointed B
Mr. Justice K. Gnanaprakasam, former Judge of Madras High Court as
2nd arbitrator.
10. When the said order is challenged before this Court, by order
dated 29.01.2018, while issuing notice this Court has ordered the Special
Leave Petition be tagged with S.L.P.(C)Nos.33745-33753 of 2017 C
(C.A.Nos.1570-1578 of 2021).
11. In S.L.P.(C)Nos.33745-33753 of 2017 (C.A.Nos.1570-1578
of 2021), vide order dated 25.01.2018, this Court issued notice limited to
the issue as to whether the counter claim of the respondent could be
entertained by the Arbitral Tribunal. D
12. We have heard Sri V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellants and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor
General appearing for the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation in
Civil Appeal Nos.1570-1578 of 2021 and Sri P.B. Suresh, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Sri Basava Prabhu Patil, learned senior E
counsel appearing for the respondent, in Civil Appeal Nos.1620-1622 of
2021.
13. Having regard to contentions of the parties, only two issues
arise for consideration before this Court, namely :
(i) Whether the provisions of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 is F
applicable to arbitration proceedings initiated under Section 18(3)
of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006
?; and
(ii) Whether, counter claim is maintainable in such arbitration
proceedings ? G
14. Before we deal with the above issues, we need to refer certain
background aspects of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
Development Act, 2006 and the earlier Act, namely, Interest on Delayed
Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993
which was repealed by virtue of Section 32 of the MSMED Act. H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R.
A 15. The Act 32 of 1993 was an outcome pursuant to a policy
statement on small scale industries made by the Government in
Parliament. It was felt that, inadequate working capital in small scale or
an ancillary industrial undertaking causes serious and endemic problems
affecting the health of such undertaking. The Small Scale Industries
Board, which was an apex advisory body on policies relating to small
B
scale industrial units with representatives from all the States,
governmental bodies and industrial sector was also of the same view.
Therefore, it was felt that prompt payments of money by buyers should
be statutorily ensured and mandatory provisions for payment of interest
on outstanding money, in case of default, should be made. The “appointed
C day”, as defined under Section 2(b) of the said Act, means – the day
following immediately after the expiry of the period of thirty days from
the day of acceptance or the day of deemed acceptance of any goods or
any services by a buyer from a supplier. Therefore, a liability to make
payment by the buyer was made under Section 3 of the said Act
mandating that buyer shall make payment before the agreed date by the
D
parties, where there is no agreement, before the appointed day. In case
of failure to make payment by the buyer within the stipulated time as per
Section 3, buyer was made to pay interest at one and a half time of
Prime Lending Rate charged by the State Bank of India. There was
also a mechanism for recovery and created Industry Facilitation Council,
E as primary body and appellate authority was notified under Section 7 of
the said Act. Under Section 10 of the said Act, Act 32 of 1993 was given
overriding effect.
16. The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act,
2006 was enacted to provide, for facilitating the promotion and
F development and enhancing the competitiveness of micro, small and
medium enterprises and for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto. By bringing the aforesaid Act (Act 27 of 2006) w.e.f. 16th June
2006, the earlier Act, namely, Interest on Delayed Payments to Small
Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 was repealed by
virtue of Section 32 of the 2006 Act. Prior to the enforcement of Act 32
G of 1993, the small scale industry was defined only by notification under
Section 11B of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951.
As per Section 29B of the said Act, notifications were being issued
notifying reservation of items for exclusive manufacture in small scale
industry sector. Except the above said two provisions, as there was no
H legal framework for the small scale industry, and by noticing that the
M/S. SILPI INDUSTRIES ETC. v. KERALA STATE ROAD 1057
TRANSPORT CORPORATION [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
small scale industry is the dynamic and vibrant sector of the country’s A
economy, it was felt to bring a comprehensive Central enactment to
provide appropriate legal framework for the sector to facilitate its growth
and development. It is also clear from the Statement of Objects and
Reasons of the Act, that the need which was felt to extend policy support
for small scale sector so that they are enabled to grow into medium ones
B
and to adopt better and higher levels of technology and achieve higher
productivity to remain competitive in fast globalization period. It was
also noticed that medium industry or enterprise was not defined by any
law. From the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it is clear that the said
Act was enacted to provide statutory definitions to ‘small enterprise’
and ‘medium enterprise’; to provide for establishment of National Small C
and Medium Enterprises Board; provide for classification of small and
medium enterprises on the basis of investment in plant and machinery;
empower the Central Government to notify programmes, guidelines for
enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium enterprises; to make
provisions for ensuring timely and smooth flow of credit to small and
D
medium enterprises to minimize the incidence of sickness; empower the
Central and State Governments to notify preference policies in respect
of procurement of goods and services; empowering the Central
Government to create a Fund or Funds for facilitating promotion and
development and enhancement of the competitiveness of small enterprises
and medium enterprises; to make further improvements in the Interest E
on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial
Undertakings Act, 1993 and to make that enactment a part of the
proposed legislation and to repeal the enactment, etc.
17. From the Statement of Objects and Reasons of both the above
legislations, it is clear that the earlier legislation, i.e., Act No.32 of 1993 F
was confined only with regard to delayed payments to small scale and
ancillary industrial undertakings but by subsequent enactment of 2006, a
comprehensive legislation was brought covering the micro, small and
medium enterprises. Under the new Act, there is a provision for
establishment of Board by the Central Government, namely, National
Board for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises. The ‘enterprises’ were G
classified under Chapter III of the 2006 Act into micro, small and medium
enterprises. Liability of buyer and the mechanism in the event of default
is by various provisions under Chapter V of the Act. Sections 5 to 19
which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of these cases read as
under : H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R.
A “5. Functions of Board.—The Board shall, subject to the general
directions of the Central Government, perform all or any of the
following functions, namely:—
(a) examine the factors affecting the promotion and
development of micro, small and medium enterprises and review
B the policies and programmes of the Central Government in regard
to facilitating the promotion and development and enhancing the
competitiveness of such enterprises and the impact thereof on
such enterprises;
(b) make recommendations on matters referred to in clause
C (a) or on any other matter referred to it by the Central Government
which, in the opinion of that Government, is necessary or expedient
for facilitating the promotion and development and enhancing the
competitiveness of the micro, small and medium enterprises; and
(c) advise the Central Government on the use of the Fund
D or Funds constituted under section 12.
6. Powers and functions of Member-Secretary of Board.—
Subject to other provisions of this Act, the Member-Secretary of
the Board shall exercise such powers and perform such functions
as may be prescribed.
E 7. Classification of enterprises.—(1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in section 11B of the Industries (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1951 (65 of 1951), the Central Government may,
for the purposes of this Act, by notification and having regard to
the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5), classify any class or
F classes of enterprises, whether proprietorship, Hindu undivided
family, association of persons, co-operative society, partnership
firm, company or undertaking, by whatever name called,—
(a) in the case of the enterprises engaged in the manufacture
or production of goods pertaining to any industry specified in the
First Schedule to the Industries (Development and Regulation)
G
Act, 1951 (65 of 1951), as—
(i) a micro enterprise, where the investment in plant and
machinery does not exceed twenty five lakh rupees;
H
M/S. SILPI INDUSTRIES ETC. v. KERALA STATE ROAD 1059
TRANSPORT CORPORATION [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
(ii) a small enterprise, where the investment in plant and A
machinery is more than twenty-five lakh rupees but does not
exceed five crore rupees; or
(iii) a medium enterprise, where the investment in plant and
machinery is more than five crore rupees but does not exceed ten
crore rupees; B
(b) in the case of the enterprises engaged in providing or
rendering of services, as—
(i) a micro enterprise, where the investment in equipment
does not exceed ten lakh rupees;
C
(ii) a small enterprise, where the investment in equipment
is more than ten lakh rupees but does not exceed two crore rupees;
or
(iii) a medium enterprise, where the investment in equipment
is more than two crore rupees but does not exceed five crore D
rupees.
Explanation 1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby
clarified that in calculating the investment in plant and machinery,
the cost of pollution control, research and development, industrial
safety devices and such other items as may be specified, by
E
notification, shall be excluded.
Explanation 2.—It is clarified that the provisions of section
29B of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951
(65 of 1951), shall be applicable to the enterprises specified in
sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of this
F
section.
(2) The Central Government shall, by notification, constitute
an Advisory Committee consisting of the following members,
namely:—
(a) the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry G
or Department of the Central Government having administrative
control of the small and medium enterprises who shall be the
Chairperson, ex officio;
H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R.
A (b) not more than five officers of the Central Government
possessing necessary expertise in matters relating to micro, small
and medium enterprises, members, ex officio;
(c) not more than three representatives of the State
Governments, members, ex officio; and
B (d) one representative each of the associations of micro,
small and medium enterprises, members, ex officio.
(3) The Member-Secretary of the Board shall also be the
ex officio Member-Secretary of the Advisory Committee.
C (4) The Central Government shall, prior to classifying any
class or classes of enterprises under sub-section (1), obtain the
recommendations of the Advisory Committee.
(5) The Advisory Committee shall examine the matters
referred to it by the Board in connection with any subject referred
D to in section 5 and furnish its recommendations to the Board.
(6) The Central Government may seek the advice of the
Advisory Committee on any of the matters specified in section 9,
10, 11, 12 or 14 of Chapter IV.
(7) The State Government may seek advice of the Advisory
E Committee on any of the matters specified in the rules made under
section 30.
(8) The Advisory Committee shall, after considering the
following matters, communicate its recommendations or advice
to the Central Government or, as the case may be, State
F Government or the Board, namely:—
(a) the level of employment in a class or classes of
enterprises;
(b) the level of investments in plant and machinery or
equipment in a class or classes of enterprises; 8
G
(c) the need of higher investment in plant and machinery or
equipment for technological upgradation, employment generation
and enhanced competitiveness of the class or classes of
enterprises;
H
M/S. SILPI INDUSTRIES ETC. v. KERALA STATE ROAD 1061
TRANSPORT CORPORATION [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
(d) the possibility of promoting and diffusing A
entrepreneurship in micro, small or medium enterprises; and
(e) the international standards for classification of small
and medium enterprises.
(9) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 11B of
the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (65 of B
1951) and clause (h) of section 2 of the Khadi and Village Industries
Commission Act, 1956 (61 of 1956), the Central Government may,
while classifying any class or classes of enterprises under sub-
section (1), vary, from time to time, the criterion of investment
and also consider criteria or standards in respect of employment C
or turnover of the enterprises and include in such classification
the micro or tiny enterprises or the village enterprises, as part of
small enterprises.
8. Memorandum of micro, small and medium enterprises.—
(1) Any person who intends to establish,— D
(a) a micro or small enterprise, may, at his discretion; or
(b) a medium enterprise engaged in providing or rendering
of services may, at his discretion; or
(c) a medium enterprise engaged in the manufacture or
E
production of goods pertaining to any industry specified in the
First Schedule to the Industries (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1951 (65 of 1951),
shall file the memorandum of micro, small or, as the case may be,
of medium enterprise with such authority as may be specified by
F
the State Government under sub-section (4) or the Central
Government under sub-section (3):
Provided that any person who, before the commencement
of this Act, established—
(a) a small scale industry and obtained a registration G
certificate, may, at his discretion; and
(b) an industry engaged in the manufacture or production
of goods pertaining to any industry specified in the First Schedule
to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (65 of
1951), having investment in plant and machinery of more than H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R.
A one crore rupees but not exceeding ten crore rupees and, in
pursuance of the notification of the Government of India in the
erstwhile Ministry of Industry (Department of Industrial
Development) number S.O. 477(E), dated the 25th July, 1991 filed
an Industrial Entrepreneur’s Memorandum,
B shall within one hundred and eighty days from the commencement
of this Act, file the memorandum, in accordance with the
provisions of this Act.
(2) The form of the memorandum, the procedure of its filing
and other matters incidental thereto shall be such as may be notified
C by the Central Government after obtaining the recommendations
of the Advisory Committee in this behalf.
(3) The authority with which the memorandum shall be filed
by a medium enterprise shall be such as may be specified, by
notification, by the Central Government.
D (4) The State Government shall, by notification, specify the
authority with which a micro or small enterprise may file the
memorandum.
(5) The authorities specified under sub-sections (3) and (4)
shall follow, for the purposes of this section, the procedure notified
E by the Central Government under sub-section (2).
9. Measures for promotion and development.—The Central
Government may, from time to time, for the purposes of facilitating
the promotion and development and enhancing the competitiveness
of micro, small and medium enterprises, particularly of the micro
F and small enterprises, by way of development of skill in the
employees, management and entrepreneurs, provisioning for
technological upgradation, marketing assistance or infrastructure
facilities and cluster development of such enterprises with a view
to strengthening backward and forward linkages, specify, by
notification, such programmes, guidelines or instructions, as it may
G
deem fit.
10. Credit facilities.—The policies and practices in respect of
credit to the micro, small and medium enterprises shall be
progressive and such as may be specified in the guidelines or
instructions issued by the Reserve Bank, from time to time, to
H
M/S. SILPI INDUSTRIES ETC. v. KERALA STATE ROAD 1063
TRANSPORT CORPORATION [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
ensure timely and smooth flow of credit to such enterprises, A
minimise the incidence of sickness among and enhance the
competitiveness of such enterprises.
11. Procurement preference policy.—For facilitating promotion
and development of micro and small enterprises, the Central
Government or the State Government may, by order notify from B
time to time, preference policies in respect of procurement of
goods and services, produced and provided by micro and small
enterprises, by its Ministries or departments, as the case may be,
or its aided institutions and public sector enterprises.
12. Funds.—There shall be constituted, by notification, one or C
more Funds to be called by such name as may be specified in the
notification and there shall be credited thereto any grants made
by the Central Government under section 13.
13. Grants by Central Government.—The Central Government
may, after due appropriation made by Parliament by law in this D
behalf, credit to the Fund or Funds by way of grants for the
purposes of this Act, such sums of money as that Government
may consider necessary to provide.
14. Administration and utilisation of Fund or Funds.—(1)
The Central Government shall have the power to administer the E
Fund or Funds in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) The
Fund or Funds shall be utilised exclusively for the measures
specified in sub-section (1) of section 9. (3) The Central
Government shall be responsible for the coordination and ensuring
timely utilisation and release of sums in accordance with such
criteria as may be prescribed. F
15. Liability of buyer to make payment.—Where any supplier
supplies any goods or renders any services to any buyer, the buyer
shall make payment therefor on or before the date agreed upon
between him and the supplier in writing or, where there is no
agreement in this behalf, before the appointed day: Provided that G
in no case the period agreed upon between the supplier and the
buyer in writing shall exceed forty-five days from the day of
acceptance or the day of deemed acceptance.
16. Date from which and rate at which interest is payable.—
Where any buyer fails to make payment of the amount to the H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R.
A supplier, as required under section 15, the buyer shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement between
the buyer and the supplier or in any law for the time being in
force, be liable to pay compound interest with monthly rests to the
supplier on that amount from the appointed day or, as the case
may be, from the date immediately following the date agreed upon,
B
at three times of the bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank.
17. Recovery of amount due.—For any goods supplied or
services rendered by the supplier, the buyer shall be liable to pay
the amount with interest thereon as provided under section 16. 10
C 18. Reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation
Council.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law for the time being in force, any party to a dispute may, with
regard to any amount due under section 17, make a reference to
the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council.
D (2) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the
Council shall either itself conduct conciliation in the matter or seek
the assistance of any institution or centre providing alternate dispute
resolution services by making a reference to such an institution or
centre, for conducting conciliation and the provisions of sections
65 to 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996)
E shall apply to such a dispute as if the conciliation was initiated
under Part III of that Act.
(3) Where the conciliation initiated under sub-section (2) is
not successful and stands terminated without any settlement
between the parties, the Council shall either itself take up the
F dispute for arbitration or refer it to any institution or centre providing
alternate dispute resolution services for such arbitration and the
provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of
1996) shall then apply to the dispute as if the arbitration was in
pursuance of an arbitration agreement referred to in sub-section
G (1) of section 7 of that Act.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law
for the time being in force, the Micro and Small Enterprises
Facilitation Council or the centre providing alternate dispute
resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as an Arbitrator
or Conciliator under this section in a dispute between the supplier
H
M/S. SILPI INDUSTRIES ETC. v. KERALA STATE ROAD 1065
TRANSPORT CORPORATION [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
located within its jurisdiction and a buyer located anywhere in A
India.
(5) Every reference made under this section shall be decided
within a period of ninety days from the date of making such a
reference.
19. Application for setting aside decree, award or order.— B
No application for setting aside any decree, award or other order
made either by the Council itself or by any institution or centre
providing alternate dispute resolution services to which a reference
is made by the Council, shall be entertained by any court unless
the appellant (not being a supplier) has deposited with it seventy- C
five per cent. of the amount in terms of the decree, award or, as
the case may be, the other order in the manner directed by such
court:
Provided that pending disposal of the application to set aside
the decree, award or order, the court shall order that such D
percentage of the amount deposited shall be paid to the supplier,
as it considers reasonable under the circumstances of the case,
subject to such conditions as it deems necessary to impose.”
18. With regard to first issue, namely, applicability of Limitation
Act, 1963 to the arbitration proceedings initiated under provisions of E
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, we need
to notice certain relevant sections of the Act. As per Section 15 of the
said Act, where supplier supplies any goods or renders any services to
any buyer, the buyer shall make payment on or before the agreed date
between the parties in writing or where there is no agreement, before
the appointed day. Section 16 deals with date from which and rate of F
interest payable in the event of not making the payment. The recovery
mechanism for the amount due is covered by Sections 17 and 18 of the
said Act. If any party has a dispute with regard to amount due under
Section 17, a reference is required to be made to the Micro and Small
Enterprises Facilitation Council. On such reference, the Council is G
empowered to conduct conciliation in the matter or seek assistance of
any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services
by making a reference to such institution for conducting conciliation. If
the conciliation is not successful, as contemplated under Section 18(2)
of the said Act, same stands terminated under Section 18(3) of the said
H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R.
A Act. Thereafter, the Council shall either itself take up the dispute for
arbitration or refer it to any institution or centre providing alternate dispute
resolution services for such arbitration and the provisions of Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 are made applicable as if the arbitration was
in pursuance of arbitration agreement between the parties, under sub-
section (1) of Section 7 of the 1996 Act. Applicability of Limitation Act,
B
1963 to the arbitrations is covered by Section 43 of the 1996 Act. The
High Court, while referring to abovesaid provisions and the judgment of
this Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination
Committee & Ors. v. Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd. & Ors.3 has
held that the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to the arbitrations covered
C by Section 18(3) of the 2006 Act. A reading of Section 43 itself makes it
clear that the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to the arbitrations, as it
applies to proceedings in court. When the settlement with regard to a
dispute between the parties is not arrived at under Section 18 of the
2006 Act, necessarily, the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation
Council shall take up the dispute for arbitration under Section 18(3) of
D
the 2006 Act or it may refer to institution or centre to provide alternate
dispute resolution services and provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation
Act 1996 are made applicable as if there was an agreement between
the parties under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the 1996 Act. In view
of the express provision applying the provisions of the Limitation Act,
E 1963 to arbitrations as per Section 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996, we are of the view that the High Court has rightly relied on
the judgment in the case of Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination
Committee3 and held that Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to the
arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) of the 2006 Act. Thus, we
are of the view that no further elaboration is necessary on this issue and
F
we hold that the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 will apply to the
arbitrations covered by Section 18(3) of the 2006 Act. We make it clear
that as the judgment of the High Court is an order of remand, we need
not enter into the controversy whether the claims/counter claims are
within time or not. We keep it open to the primary authority to go into
G such issues and record its own findings on merits.
19. The other issue is with regard to maintainability of counter
claim in the arbitration proceedings initiated as per Section 18(3) of the
2006 Act. It is true that recovery amount under Section 17 of the said
3
H (2016) 3 SCC 468
M/S. SILPI INDUSTRIES ETC. v. KERALA STATE ROAD 1067
TRANSPORT CORPORATION [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
Act is only with reference to the amounts claimed by the supplier under A
Section 16 of the said Act. But coming to Section 18 of the said Act, the
words used are, ‘any party to a dispute’ for making a reference to Micro
and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the Act.
To decide the issue of maintainability we refer to the first batch of appeals,
which are filed aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Kerala.
B
The appellants are suppliers of thread rubber for tyre rebuilding to the
respondent-KSRTC. They were given purchase orders by the
Corporation and they were paid 90% of the total price and 10% was to
be paid based on the final performance report. Whereas it is the case of
the appellants that they are entitled for balance amount of 10%, same
was withheld illegally, on the other hand it is the case of the Corporation C
that as the performance of the supplies were not in accordance with the
contractual terms, as such, the appellants are not entitled for any amount
and in some of the matters counter claims were made by the Corporation
against the appellants. Sri V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellants in first batch of appeals has mainly contended that a
D
comprehensive reading of the various provisions under Chapter V of the
2006 Act, makes it clear that the conciliation and arbitration, is referable
to the claims of the supplier only. It is submitted that 2006 Act is a
beneficial legislation to the micro and small enterprises, as such, scope
of the Act cannot be expanded by allowing counter claims by buyer. It is
submitted that the object of 2006 Act is solely intended to protect the E
micro and small enterprises, if counter claims are allowed it amounts to
expanding the scope of the enactment. On the other hand it is submitted
by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Addl. Solicitor General appearing for
the respondent-Corporation and Sri P.B. Suresh, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of C.A.Nos.1620-
F
1622 of 2021 that the MSMED Act which is a beneficial legislation to
“unpaid seller” cannot be rendered otiose, and the authorities constituted
under the Act cannot be denied its jurisdiction to entertain the claims, at
the instance of buyer on the mere plea of counter claim. It is submitted
that only on such ground that Facilitation Council is denied its jurisdiction,
the various benefits conferred under the Act to the sellers will be denied. G
It is submitted that in every case to deny the benefits conferred under
the Statute, the seller cannot be deprived of such benefits on the plea
that counter claim is not maintainable before the authorities constituted
under 2006 Act. By referring to Section 16 of the Act, it is submitted that
where any buyer fails to make payment of the amounts to the supplier,
H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R.
A as required under Section 15, the buyer shall, notwithstanding anything
contained in any agreement between the buyer and the supplier or in
any law for the time being in force, be liable to pay compound interest
with monthly rests to the supplier on that amount from the appointed day
or, as the case may be, from the date agreed upon, at three times of the
bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank. By further referring to Section
B
19 of the Act it is submitted that when an application is filed for setting
aside decree, award or order same shall not be entertained by any court
unless the appellant (not being a supplier), has deposited with it 75% of
the amount in terms of the decree or award. The said benefits are
conferred, in view of the beneficial objects of the Act, to the sellers. It is
C submitted that if the jurisdiction of the Council is ousted on the ground
that counter claim cannot be entertained, buyer can easily get over the
legal obligations of payment of compound interest and pre-deposit of
75% of the awarded amount in the event of challenge to the same, as
referred above. Thus, it is submitted that the counter claim is maintainable
before the authorities constituted under 2006 Act. Further, it is submitted
D
that when the conciliation is failed, for further proceedings, provisions of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are made applicable as if there
is an agreement between the parties under sub-section (1) of Section 7
of the 1996 Act, as such there is no reason for not allowing counter
claim by the buyer. A specific reference is made to Section 23(2A) of
E the 1996 Act. Learned senior counsel Sri Basava Prabhu S. Patil,
appearing for the respondent in C.A.Nos.1620-1622 of 2021 has
submitted that no claim or counter claim under Section 18 is contemplated
or permissible. It is submitted that the expression ‘any party’ occurring
in Section 18 is referable to supplier alone. Thus, it is submitted that in
absence of jurisdiction, no counter claim can be entertained. Further it is
F
submitted that in any event as the supply of goods and services were
made much prior to filing of memorandum by the appellant, the appellant
cannot make any claim before the authority constituted under MSMED
Act.
20. From a reading of Section 18(3) of the 2006 Act it is clear that
G when the conciliation initiated under sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the
said Act is not successful, the Council shall either itself take up the
dispute for arbitration or refer to any institution for arbitration. Further
Section 18(3) of the said Act also makes it clear that the provisions of
1996 Act are made applicable as if there is an agreement between the
H parties under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the 1996 Act. Section 23 of
M/S. SILPI INDUSTRIES ETC. v. KERALA STATE ROAD 1069
TRANSPORT CORPORATION [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
the 1996 Act deals with the statement of claim and defence. Section A
23(2A), which gives a right to respondent to submit a counter claim or
plead set-off with regard to claims within the scope of the arbitration
agreement, is brought into Statute by Amending Act 3 of 2016. If we
look at the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amending Act,
same is also enacted to provide for speedy disposal of cases relating to
B
arbitration with least court intervention. Clause 11 of the Bill, by which
sub-section (2A) was proposed to be inserted, states that sub-section
(2A) was intended to give an opportunity to the respondent, in support of
his case, to submit counter-claim or a set-off if such counter-claim or
set-off falls within the scope of arbitration agreement. When Section
18(3) makes it clear that in the event of failure by the Council under C
Section 18(2) if proceedings are initiated under Section 18(3) of the
1996 Act, the provisions of 1996 Act are not only made applicable but
specific mention is made to the effect as if the arbitration was in pursuance
to an arbitration agreement referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 7 of
the 1996 Act. When there is a provision for filing counter-claim and set-
D
off which is expressly inserted in Section 23 of the 1996 Act, there is no
reason for curtailing the right of the respondent for making counter-
claim or set-off in proceedings before the Facilitation Council.
21. It is also further to be noted that if we do not allow the counter-
claim made by the buyer in the proceedings arising out of claims made
by the seller, it may lead to parallel proceedings before the various fora. E
On one hand, in view of beneficial legislation, seller may approach the
Facilitation Council for claims, in the event of failure of payment by the
buyer under provisions of 2006 Act, at the same time, if there is no
separate agreement between the parties for any arbitration in a given
case, buyer may approach the civil court for making claims against the F
seller, or else if there is an agreement between the parties for arbitration
in the event of dispute between the parties, parties may seek appointment
of arbitrator. At the same time if the seller is covered by definition under
micro, small and medium enterprises, seller may approach the Facilitation
Council for making claims under the provisions of Micro, Small and
Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. In such event, it may result G
in conflicting findings, by various forums.
22. In second set of cases it is clear that when the seller approached
the Facilitation Council making certain claims against the buyer, buyer
after his appearance, has approached the High Court under Section 11(6)
H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R.
A of the 1996 Act for appointment of arbitrator on the ground that there is
an agreement between the parties for arbitration. Though it was pleaded
before the High Court by the appellant that it has already approached
the Facilitation Council and proceedings are pending, the respondent as
well contest the proceedings and also lay its counter-claim, the High
Court has rejected such plea on the ground that the 2006 Act primarily
B
deals with the claims of the seller only. The High Court has held that as
the buyer cannot make counter-claim, the proceedings cannot be
proceeded with before the Council under 2006 Act and accordingly
ordered by appointing second arbitrator.
23. The obligations of the buyer to make payment, and award of
C interest at three times of the bank rate notified by Reserve Bank in the
event of delay by the buyer and the mechanism for recovery and
reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and further
remedies under the 2006 Act for the party aggrieved by the awards, are
covered by Chapter V of the 2006 Act. The provisions of Section 15 to
D 23 of the Act are given overriding effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in
force. From the Statement of Objects and Reasons also it is clear that it
is a beneficial legislation to the small, medium and micro sector. The
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a general law whereas the Micro,
Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 is a special
E beneficial legislation which is intended to benefit micro, small and medium
enterprises covered by the said Act. The Act of 2006 contemplates a
statutory arbitration when conciliation fails. A party which is covered by
the provisions of 2006 Act allows a party to apply to the Council
constituted under the Act to first conciliate and then arbitrate on the
F dispute between it and other parties. There are fundamental differences
in the settlement mechanism under the 2006 Act and the 1996 Act. The
first difference is, the Council constituted under the 2006 Act to undertake
mandatory conciliation before the arbitration which is not so under the
1996 Act. Secondly, in the event of failure of conciliation under the 2006
Act, the Council or the centre or institution is identified by it for arbitration.
G The 1996 Act allows resolution of disputes by agreed forum. The third
difference is that, in the event of award in favour of seller and if the
same is to be challenged, there is a condition for pre-deposit of 75% of
the amount awarded. Such is not the case in the 1996 Act. When such
beneficial provisions are there in the special enactment, such benefits
H cannot be denied on the ground that counter-claim is not maintainable
M/S. SILPI INDUSTRIES ETC. v. KERALA STATE ROAD 1071
TRANSPORT CORPORATION [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
before the Council. In any case, whenever buyer wish to avoid the A
jurisdiction of the Council, the buyer can do on the spacious plea of
counter-claim, without responding to the claims of the seller. When the
provisions of Sections 15 to 23 are given overriding effect under Section
24 of the Act and further the 2006 Act is a beneficial legislation, we are
of the view that even the buyer, if any claim is there, can very well
B
subject to the jurisdiction before the Council and make its claim/ counter
claim as otherwise it will defeat the very objects of the Act which is a
beneficial legislation to micro, small and medium enterprises. Even in
cases where there is no agreement for resolution of disputes by way of
arbitration, if the seller is a party covered by Micro, Small and Medium
Enterprises Development Act, 2006, if such party approaches the Council C
for resolution of dispute, other party may approach the civil court or any
other forum making claims on the same issue. If two parallel proceedings
are allowed, it may result in conflicting findings. At this stage, it is relevant
to notice the judgment of this Court in the case of Edukanti Kistamma
(Dead) through LRs. v. S. Venkatareddy (Dead) through LRs. &
D
Ors.4 where this Court has held that a special Statute would be preferred
over general one where it is beneficial one. It was explained that the
purport and object of the Act must be given its full effect by applying the
principles of purposive construction. Thus, it is clear that out of the two
legislations, the provisions of MSMED Act will prevail, especially when
it has overriding provision under Section 24 thereof. Thus, we hold that E
MSMED Act, being a special Statute, will have an overriding effect vis-
à-vis Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is a general Act.
Even if there is an agreement between the parties for resolution of
disputes by arbitration, if a seller is covered by Micro, Small and Medium
Enterprises Development Act, 2006, the seller can certainly approach
F
the competent authority to make its claim. If any agreement between
the parties is there, same is to be ignored in view of the statutory obligations
and mechanism provided under the 2006 Act. Further, apart from the
provision under Section 23(2A) of the 1996 Act, it is to be noticed that if
counter-claim is not permitted, buyer can get over the legal obligation of
compound interest at 3 times of the bank rate and the “75% pre-deposit” G
contemplated under Sections 16 and 19 of the MSMED Act.
24. For the aforesaid reasons and on a harmonious construction
of Section 18(3) of the 2006 Act and Section 7(1) and Section 23(2A) of
4
(2010) 1 SCC 756 H
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R.
A the 1996 Act, we are of the view that counter-claim is maintainable
before the statutory authorities under MSMED Act.
25. In C.A.Nos.1620-1622 of 2021, the High Court, while negating
the plea of the appellant, on the maintainability of counter-claim, has
allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 11(6) of
B the 1996 Act and appointed the second arbitrator. Though, we are of the
view that counter-claim and set-off is maintainable before the statutory
authorities under MSMED Act, appellant in this set of appeals is not
entitled for the relief, for the reason that on the date of supply of goods
and services the appellant did not have the registration by submitting the
memorandum as per Section 8 of the Act. The bids were invited on
C 23.02.2010, appellant submitted its bid on 17.05.2010, respondent awarded
contract to the appellant on 24.09.2010 and the parties signed the contract
documents for supply of material, installation/commissioning of the power
plant on 29.07.2011. Thereafter, supplies were made and the appellant
has raised first invoice on 02.11.2011 for supply contract and also raised
D the first invoice pursuant to contract for installation on 07.07.2012 and
the appellant has raised the last invoice in furtherance of contract for
supply of material, on 29.03.2014. The appellant also claims to have
raised last invoice on 29.03.2015 in furtherance of contract for installation.
It is to be noticed that appellant approached the District Industrial Centre
for grant of entrepreneur memorandum only on 25.03.2015.
E
26. Though the appellant claims the benefit of provisions under
MSMED Act, on the ground that the appellant was also supplying as on
the date of making the claim, as provided under Section 8 of the MSMED
Act, but same is not based on any acceptable material. The appellant, in
support of its case placed reliance on a judgment of the Delhi High
F Court in the case of GE T&D India Ltd. v. Reliable Engineering
Projects and Marketing5, but the said case is clearly distinguishable
on facts as much as in the said case, the supplies continued even after
registration of entity under Section 8 of the Act. In the present case,
undisputed position is that the supplies were concluded prior to registration
G of supplier. The said judgment of Delhi High Court relied on by the
appellant also would not render any assistance in support of the case of
the appellant. In our view, to seek the benefit of provisions under MSMED
Act, the seller should have registered under the provisions of the Act, as
on the date of entering into the contract. In any event, for the supplies
5
H 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6978
M/S. SILPI INDUSTRIES ETC. v. KERALA STATE ROAD 1073
TRANSPORT CORPORATION [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
pursuant to the contract made before the registration of the unit under A
provisions of the MSMED Act, no benefit can be sought by such entity,
as contemplated under MSMED Act. While interpreting the provisions
of Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial
Undertakings Act, 1993, this Court, in the judgment in the case of Shanti
Conductors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. etc. v. Assam State Electricity Board
B
& Ors. etc.6 has held that date of supply of goods/services can be
taken as the relevant date, as opposed to date on which contract for
supply was entered, for applicability of the aforesaid Act. Even applying
the said ratio also, the appellant is not entitled to seek the benefit of the
Act. There is no acceptable material to show that, supply of goods has
taken place or any services were rendered, subsequent to registration of C
appellant as the unit under MSMED Act, 2006. By taking recourse to
filing memorandum under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act,
subsequent to entering into contract and supply of goods and services,
one cannot assume the legal status of being classified under MSMED
Act, 2006, as an enterprise, to claim the benefit retrospectively from the
D
date on which appellant entered into contract with the respondent. The
appellant cannot become micro or small enterprise or supplier, to claim
the benefits within the meaning of MSMED Act 2006, by submitting a
memorandum to obtain registration subsequent to entering into the contract
and supply of goods and services. If any registration is obtained, same
will be prospective and applies for supply of goods and services E
subsequent to registration but cannot operate retrospectively. Any other
interpretation of the provision would lead to absurdity and confer
unwarranted benefit in favour of a party not intended by legislation.
27. It is also not in dispute that the appellant approached the District
Industrial Centre and filed entrepreneur memorandum under Section 8 F
of the MSMED Act 2006 only on 25.03.2015 and later has approached
the Council invoking the provisions of MSMED Act by filing application
under Section 18 of the Act. It is the specific case of the respondent that
the appellant has abandoned the incomplete work having made deficient
and defective supplies in the month of February/March 2015. In that
view of the matter, we are of the firm view that the appellant is not G
entitled to invoke the provisions of Chapter V and seek reference to
arbitration under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006. Further, as it is
also not in dispute that there is an agreement for arbitration between the
parties for resolution of disputes pursuant to their contract, as such, we
6
(2019) 19 SCC 529 H
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R.
A are of the view that the High Court has rightly allowed the application
filed by the respondent under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act.
28. For the aforesaid reasons, these Civil Appeals are dismissed
with no order as to costs.
B
Devika Gujral Appeals dismissed.
C
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Limitation Act"Sign in to search