TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1904
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tation Council, Puducherry (for short, the Council) under Section 18(2) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for brevity, the Act) calling upon the petitioner to appear in person or through video conferencing link to participate in mediation. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned notice. 4. The case of the petitioner is as follows: (i) The petitioner was the successful bidder and was awarded with a contract on 29.2.2016 by the Government of P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. The first issue that requires the consideration of this Court is regarding the maintainability of the above civil revision petition under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the said notice dated 14.5.2025 issued by the Council calling upon the petitioner to participate in the mediation. 6. The Act provides for a mechanism for settling the dispute under Section 18 of the Act. The said notice dated 14.5.2025 had only called upon the petitioner to attend for the mediation process. At this stage, there is no lis between the parties and the actual lis commences only when the conciliation fails and the dispute between the parties becomes adversarial. Till that stage is reached, it cannot be held that the proceedings are pendi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esh claim made by the respondent and based on this submission, W.P. No.2224 of 2025 was withdrawn on 19.6.2025 in order to work out the remedy before the Council. 11. The said submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be brushed aside since the Council would not have entertained the claim subsequently if such a submission had not been made before this Court in the earlier writ petition. Hence, it cannot be held that the Council has reviewed its previous decision. 12. The other ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is that there is a pending civil proceedings before the Commercial Court and that in view of the same, the Council could not parallelly prosecute the claim made by the respondent. 13. As stated ....