Mentoassociates.com – Legal Articles

The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006, has played a crucial role in protecting the interests of micro and small enterprises. Various judicial pronouncements have clarified its provisions and established precedents. Below are some significant case laws that have shaped the interpretation of the MSMED Act:

• The Indur District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. v. Microplex (India), Hyderabad (2016) (3) ALD 588

The Court held that the supplier need not be registered or have a registered office within the jurisdiction of the Facilitation Council; it is sufficient if the supplier is located within the Council’s jurisdiction.

• Silpi Industries v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. (2021) SCC OnLine SC 439

The Supreme Court ruled that registration under the MSMED Act at the time of contract performance is essential.

• Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. v. Mahaveer Transmission Udyog Pvt. Ltd.

The Court, relying on Goodyear India Limited v. Norton Intech Rubbers Pvt. Ltd., held that deposits under Section 19 must be made in cash, and alternative modes such as bank guarantees are not permissible.

• Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. (2023) LiveLaw (SC) 12

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that the MSMED Act prevails over the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002, due to the overriding effect of Sections 15 to 23.

• Bajaj Electricals Ltd. v. Chanda S. Khetawat and Anr.

The Bombay High Court emphasized that the MSMED Act was enacted to ensure smooth and timely payments to micro and small enterprises and has overriding authority over conflicting laws.

• Magnus Opus IT Consulting Pvt. Ltd. v. Artcad Systems (2022) LiveLaw (Bom) 354

The Bombay High Court observed that if the MSME Facilitation Council fails to conclude arbitration within 90 days, as mandated by Section 18(5), the arbitration process becomes ineffective, and the aggrieved party must seek recourse under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

• NBCC (India) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Prs. (2022) LiveLaw (Cal) 214

The Calcutta High Court ruled that objections to the applicability of the MSMED Act to works contracts must be raised and resolved within arbitration proceedings before the MSME Council.

• Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation v. Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd. (2022) LiveLaw (SC) 893

The Supreme Court held that a reference to the MSME Facilitation Council is valid even when an independent arbitration agreement exists, allowing the Council to proceed under Section 18.

• Steel Authority of India & Anr. v. MSEFC AIR (2012) Bom 178

The Bombay High Court clarified that arbitration under Section 18 of the MSMED Act does not invalidate an independent arbitration agreement unless inconsistencies arise.

• Reliance Communications Ltd. v. State of Bihar, Patna HC WP 8077/2018

The Patna High Court ruled that Section 18(3) does not imply that a conciliator can act as an arbitrator unless agreed upon by the parties.

• Cummins Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, WP 7785/2020 Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court held that Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, which allows the MSEFC to arbitrate disputes, overrides Section 80 of the Arbitration Act.

• Ved Prakash v. P. Ponram, OSA No. 231/2019 Madras HC

The Madras High Court confirmed that, while the MSME Council may proceed with arbitration after conciliation, the same member cannot act as both conciliator and arbitrator without mutual consent.

• Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. FEPL Engineering (P) Ltd. C.M. No. 19356/2019 Del HC

The Delhi High Court clarified that the location of the supplier determines the arbitration venue, whereas the arbitration agreement dictates the arbitration seat.

• Fives Stien India Project Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/MP/0565/2018

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that the 90-day limit for MSME Council arbitration is directory, not mandatory.

• Goodyear India Ltd. v. Norton Intech Rubbers Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 6 SCC 345

The Supreme Court, relying on Snehadeep Structures Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharashtra Small-Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. (2010) 3 SCC 34, held that courts cannot waive or reduce the mandatory 75% pre-deposit requirement under Section 19, but they may allow instalment payments.

• The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act (MSMED) (hereinafter referred to as Act) provides a very quick and effective means of money recovery for micro and small enterprises. Section 15 to 25 of chapter V of the act covers the same. These special privileges are for micro and small enterprises. A small enterprise growing to medium can also avail these remedies for getting the delayed payments. 

• A small enterprise, if engaged in manufacture or production of goods, is one where the investment in plant and machinery is more than 25 lakh rupees but does not exceed 5 crore rupees. In the case of an enterprise engaged in providing services, it will be treated as a small enterprise where the investment is more than 10 lakhs rupees but does not exceed 2 crore rupees. 

• A micro enterprise is an enterprise engaged in the manufacture and production of goods and where the investment in plant and machinery does not exceed 25 lakh rupees. In the case of an enterprise engaged in providing or rendering of services, for a micro enterprise, the investment in equipment shall  not exceed 10 Lakh rupees. 

• As per section 15 of the act, if a supplier supplies any goods or renders any services to any buyer, the buyer shall make payment on or before the date agreed upon between him and the supplier in writing or when there is no agreement in this behalf, before the appointed day. Here a supplier means a micro or small enterprise. As per section 2(b) of the act, the appointed day means the day following immediately after the expiry of the period of 15 days from the day of acceptance or the day of deemed acceptance of any goods or services by a buyer from a supplier. The period agreed between the supplier and buyer, in writing, shall not exceed 45 days from the day of acceptance or the day of deemed acceptance.

• As per section 16 of the act, if a buyer fails to make payment of the amount to the supplier as required under the act, the buyer shall be liable to pay compound interest with monthly rests to the supplier on that amount from the time of the appointed day or from the date immediately following the date agreed upon at 3 times the bank rate notified by RBI. If the claimant has received the principal already, the claim can be filed for interest alone. 

• As per section 18 of the act, if a supplier has a dispute with a buyer, in regards to any amount due, he may make a reference to the micro and small enterprises facilitation council (MSEFC)(hereinafter referred to as Council). On receipt of a reference, the council shall either itself conduct conciliation in the matter or refer the matter for conciliation to an institution providing ADR(Alternate Dispute Resolution ) services. The provisions of the delayed payments under the act, are not applicable to foreign buyers. Even a government department as a buyer can be proceeded against in the council. 

• MSME Samadhan portal is a portal where micro and small enterprises can file their applications online regarding delayed payments. For the purpose of applying to the MSEFC, the micro or small enterprise shall have a valid UDYAM registration. The application filed online will be forwarded automatically to the concerned MSEFC which will take action on the application. The claim should be submitted in hard copy also. 

• To file an application on MSME samadhan portal, work order is compulsory. In case the purchase order is oral, an affidavit to that effect is to be submitted. A legal notice by the supplier to the buyer is not necessary before filing the case in the council. 

• If the conciliation under section 18 is not successful, the council shall either itself take up the dispute for arbitration or refer it to an institution or centre providing ADR services. For the purpose of this conciliation and arbitration, the jurisdiction of the MSEFC or the Alternate Dispute Resolution centre will be the supplier’s jurisdiction and the buyer can be located anywhere in India. Every reference to MSEFC under section 18 shall be decided within a period of 90 days from the date of making such a reference. An award passed by the MSEFC can be executed under section 36 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996.

• If a person wants to set aside the decree, award or order passed by the MSEFC, then they can file the application before the jurisdictional court under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. If it is by the buyer, then he needs to deposit 75% of the amount in terms of the decree award or the order as a condition for filing the setting aside application. Furthermore, the court considering the application to set aside the decree, award or order, shall order a reasonable percentage of the amount deposited to be paid to the supplier. 

• As per section 22 of the act, where any buyer is required to get his annual accounts audited, under any law, such buyer shall furnish several information about the principal and interest amount due to any supplier at the end of each accounting year and several other connected information. If anybody intentionally contravenes the provisions of section 22, he shall be liable with fine which shall not be less than 10 thousand rupees. 

• If the buyer is claiming rejection of goods for quality deficiencies, then the rejection should be genuine within 15 days of the receipt of the goods and its immediate communication to the supplier.