Authority: High Court at Calcutta (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 05.10.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Board of Major Port Authority for the Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata & Anr.
  • Respondents: Haryana Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (HMSEFC), Panchkula & Ors., and the contractor (respondent no. 4).
  • W.P.A. No. 26463 of 2025 filed challenging the jurisdiction of HMSEFC to entertain a claim under Section 18(1) of the MSMED Act, 2006.
  • Tender process: E‑tender notice issued on 18‑Aug‑2021 for comprehensive architectural services for Jawahar Tower Complex, Haldia Township. Respondent no. 4 submitted bid on 8‑Sep‑2021 and provided additional technical information on 4‑Oct‑2021 and 24‑Nov‑2021.
  • Offer validity extended by respondent no. 4 on 6‑Apr‑2022 to 30‑Apr‑2022, retaining original terms.
  • Work order issued by petitioners on 21‑Apr‑2022 for Rs 12,50,000 plus GST, with no variation allowed.
  • Respondent no. 4 visited site on 28‑29‑Apr‑2022, requested drawings, submitted revised concept on 18‑Jun‑2022 (only two floor‑plan options, incomplete per Appendix 1).
  • Correspondence continued from 20‑Jun‑2022 to 17‑Nov‑2022 regarding design revisions, gate modifications, internal layouts, etc.
  • First R.A. bill of Rs 2,95,000 (20% of contract value) raised on 10‑Feb‑2023; petitioners paid the amount per Clause 6.7.2 of tender document.
  • Despite repeated requests, respondent no. 4 failed to submit many deliverables and continued demanding payment.
  • On 16‑Oct‑2024 respondent agreed to revise deliverables within 45‑60 days; later asked to submit detailed estimate within four months, submitted only a defective estimate for the Lock Area.
  • Respondent refused to revise estimate; petitioners issued show‑cause notice on 17‑Feb‑2025. No final R.A. bill submitted thereafter.
  • Petitioners issued termination order on 25‑Mar‑2025; respondent no. 4 did not challenge the termination before any forum.
  • Respondent filed an application before HMSEFC under Section 18(1) of the MSMED Act, claiming Rs 18,40,800, alleging non‑payment.
  • The court examined relevant provisions: Section 15 (payment timeline), Section 16 (interest), Section 17 (recovery of amount), Section 18 (reference to MSMED Council), and definitions of “buyer”, “supplier”, and “goods”.
  • Findings: Respondent no. 4 is not a buyer under the Act, did not supply goods or complete services, and no claim was raised before petitioners prior to filing the MSMED application. The MSMED Council lacks jurisdiction to decide on contract termination.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court allowed the writ petition (WPA 26463/2025), set aside and quashed the proceedings initiated by respondent no. 4 before the MSMED Council, and held that no amount is payable by the petitioners to respondent no. 4.
  • The termination order dated 25‑Mar‑2025 stands unchallenged, and the claim of Rs 18,40,800 is dismissed.

Topics: MSMED Act, Contract Termination