Supplier status under MSME law upheld where joint venture structure was accepted, allowing Facilitation Council reference to proceed.

A joint venture constituent was treated as a supplier under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 because the contract record showed the petitioner had accepted the joint venture structure in the work order and subcontract arrangement. On that basis, the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council was competent to entertain the reference under Section 18, conduct conciliation, and, if conciliation failed, refer the dispute to arbitration. The absence of direct privity with the petitioner did not by itself deprive the Council of jurisdiction, and the challenge that the order was non-speaking or without authority was rejected. The writ challenge to the reference accordingly failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reference made by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 was jurisdiction and liable to be quashed on the ground that the respondent invoking the remedy was not in privity of contract with the petitioner and did not fall within the statutory definition of supplier.

Analysis: The contract record showed that the petitioner had entered into the work order and subcontract arrangement with the joint venture comprising the respondent and another entity, and the petitioner had accepted the constituent entities as part of that joint venture structure. The statutory definition of supplier in Section 2(n) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 is wide enough to include a body constituted under law and engaged in supplying goods or services of micro or small enterprises. On that basis, the respondent was treated as falling within the supplier definition for the purpose of the petitioner's transaction. Once that relationship existed, the Facilitation Council was competent to entertain the reference, conduct conciliation under Section 18(2), and, on failure of conciliation, make a reference for arbitration under Section 18(3). The challenge that the impugned order was non-speaking or without jurisdiction did not survive in view of the statutory scheme and the contractual matrix accepted by the petitioner.

Conclusion: The writ challenge to the Council's reference failed; the impugned order was upheld and the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the contractual arrangement and the statutory definition of supplier bring a joint venture constituent within the scope of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, the Facilitation Council is competent to proceed under Section 18, and its reference for arbitration cannot be quashed merely on a plea of absence of direct privity with the petitioner.

---