Aparesh Kumar Singh,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Respondent no. 3 invoked the jurisdiction of Jharkhand Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council (hereinafter referred to as Facilitation Council 'in short') in terms of Section 18 of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council Act, 2006 raising a claim for payment of outstanding bills, 13 in numbers furnished in the Chart enclosed to Annexure­2 totalling Rs. 50,053.00/­. The date of bills are distributed over a period of 4 years starting from 28th March, 2005 till 28th July, 2009.
(3.) The opposite party/petitioner herein was noticed vide Memo no. 259 Ranchi dated 2nd February, 2012 in Case No. JHMSEFC 03/2011 to appear on 24th February, 2012 before the Council at Directorate of Industries, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi and submit its show cause, failing which the matter would proceed ex parte. Apparently, the notice did not enclose the claim petition, which was served vide Annexure­2 dated 27th February, 2012 to General Manager, Kustore Area, B.C.C.L by the claimant/respondent no. 3 herein with the enclosures. Petitioner sought to submit its written statement on 22nd March, 2012 i.e., the date on which the matter was finally decided. The petitioner did not file its reply on the next date fixed 14th March, 2012 admittedly. He was refused permission to file its show cause on 22nd March, 2012, when the Council proceeded to decide the case on merits. The impugned order passed thereupon and communicated vide Memo no. 1384 dated 26th April, 2012 (Annexure­4) has been challenged by the petitioner in the aforesaid background facts. Petitioner on its part raised the plea of denial of sufficient opportunity to file written statement in its defence. Apart from that a plea of limitation has also been taken in respect of the different claims outstanding referred to in the claim application containing the chart of the bills. It has also questioned the approach of the Facilitation Council in deciding the matter on merits without exhausting the steps stipulated under Section 18(2) of the Act of 2006. It is submitted that the matter was required to be first referred for conciliation and only on failure to arrive at a settlement between the parties, the Council would have taken up dispute for arbitration or referred it to any institution or center for adjudication in the nature of an arbitration proceeding in terms of Section 18(3) of the Act. The impugned order is otherwise also cryptic and straightaway proceeded to determine the liability of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 50,231/­ towards principal amount with interest at three times of Bank rate notified by Reserve Bank of India in terms of Section 16 of the Act till the date payment is made.;