TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Confirms Council Lacks Jurisdiction under MSME Act</h1> <h3>M/s. Vaishno Enterprises Versus Hamilton Medical AG & Anr.</h3> M/s. Vaishno Enterprises Versus Hamilton Medical AG & Anr. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Micro and Small Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council (the Council) under the MSME Act.2. Applicability of the MSME Act to a foreign entity.3. Validity of the termination of the Consulting Agreement.4. Entitlement to payments and damages claimed by the appellant.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Micro and Small Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council (the Council) under the MSME Act:The primary issue for consideration was whether the Council had jurisdiction under the MSME Act to entertain the dispute between the appellant and the respondent. The appellant argued that since the agreements were executed in Delhi and services were rendered in India, the Council had jurisdiction. The respondent contended that as it was a company based in Switzerland, the MSME Act did not apply. The Court held that the relevant clause in the agreement stipulated that the laws of India applicable at the time of the contract would govern the parties. Since the appellant was not registered as an MSME at the time of the contract (registered on 28.08.2020, after the contract on 24.08.2020), the MSME Act did not apply, and thus, the Council had no jurisdiction.2. Applicability of the MSME Act to a foreign entity:The respondent argued that the MSME Act was not applicable to foreign entities, as it was based in Switzerland. The Court noted that the respondent's registered office and the address mentioned in the agreements were in Switzerland. Therefore, the Council did not have jurisdiction over a dispute involving a foreign entity under Section 18 of the MSME Act. The Court also left open the larger issue of whether the MSME Act would apply if the buyer is located outside India but availed services in India, to be considered in an appropriate case.3. Validity of the termination of the Consulting Agreement:The appellant challenged the termination of the Consulting Agreement dated 24.08.2020, claiming it was illegal and void. However, the Court did not delve deeply into this issue, as the primary focus was on the jurisdiction of the Council under the MSME Act. The termination notice and the subsequent reply were part of the factual matrix but did not alter the jurisdictional conclusion.4. Entitlement to payments and damages claimed by the appellant:The appellant sought various payments and damages, including amounts covered by invoices and damages for termination. The Court's decision on jurisdiction rendered these claims moot under the MSME Act. The claims for payments and damages were not adjudicated upon, as the Council was deemed to lack jurisdiction. The Court's focus remained on the applicability of the MSME Act and the jurisdictional authority of the Council.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, confirming that the Council had no jurisdiction under the MSME Act to entertain the dispute between the appellant and the respondent. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The Court also kept open the larger issue of the MSME Act's applicability to foreign entities for future consideration.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
