Jaiprakash Associates Ltd v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council

Delhi High Court · 12 Apr 2023 · 2023:DHC:2565

Prathiba M. Singh

W.P.(C) 4470/2022

2023:DHC:2565

civil review_petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court corrected its earlier order to accurately record the petitioner's submission on the nature of contracts and held that the arbitrator shall independently decide whether the contracts are works contracts involving services without being influenced by the Court's observations.

Full Text

2023:DHC:2565 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 4470/2022 and CM APPL. 17549/2023, REVIEW PET.
91/2023 JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Dutt & Mr. Tenzen Tashi Negi, Advocates (M-6230099000).

VERSUS

MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL
(SOUTH EAST) GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .. Respondents
Through: Ms. Mreganka Kukreja, Advocate for Mr. Shadan Farasat, ASC, GNCTD/R-1 (M- 7049007766)
Mr Vaibhav Gaggar & Mr. Ketan Sarraf, Advocates for R-2 (M-
8285212361)

AND

W.P.(C) 4520/2022 and CM APPL. 17737/2023, REVIEW PET.
92/2023 JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Dutt & Mr. Tenzen Tashi Negi, Advocates

VERSUS

MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL
(SOUTH EAST) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Mreganka Kukreja, Advocate for Mr. Shadan Farasat, ASC, GNCTD/R-1.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R 12.04.2023

JUDGMENT

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

REVIEW PET. 91/2023 in W.P.(C) 4470/2022 REVIEW PET. 92/2023 in W.P.(C) 4520/2022

2. These are two review petitions seeking review/ recall of the order dated 16th March 2023 passed by this Court.

3. The submission of Mr. Dutt, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that the contracts are work contracts as they involve the rendering of services. It is his case that his submission is wrongly recorded in paragraph 17. The same is as under:

“17. At this stage, Mr. Dutt, ld. Counsel raises another submission that these are not works contracts as there are services also which are involved and that, post registration as an MSME, only in respect of one of the contracts, a bill has been raised. So disputes under all agreements ought not to be referred to arbitration.”

4. In view of the submissions made by the ld. Counsel, paragraph 17 of the order dated 16th March, 2023 shall now read as under:

“17. At this stage, Mr. Dutt, ld. Counsel raises another submission that these are works contracts as there are services also which are involved and that, post registration as an MSME, only in respect of one of the contracts, a bill has been raised. So disputes under all agreements ought not to be referred to arbitration.”

5. In view of the above clarification made by Mr. Dutt, ld. Counsel, it is further clarified that the question as to whether the contracts involved are work contracts at all, shall be adjudicated by the ld. Arbitrator without being influenced by any observations made by this Court in the order dated 16th March, 2023.

6. With these observations, both the review petitions are disposed of. All pending applications are also disposed of.

7. This order shall be uploaded as a corrigendum to the order dated 16th March, 2023.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. APRIL 12, 2023 Rahul/KT

Jaiprakash Associates Ltd v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation