CLAIM OF EASE OF DOING BUSINESS IN INDIA –A HOAX AND HOLLOW

EVEN AFTER WORKING FOR 125 MONTHS WITHOUT SINGLE COMPLAINT AS PER ORDERS OF A JUDICIAL PROCESS UNDER STATUTE, ONE IS RENDERED TO ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT INSTEAD OF TIMELY PAYMENT of SERVICE CHARGES AND PENALTY THEREON AS PER MSMED ACT 2006, AND SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF ARBIITRATION ACT.

HONBLE JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & HNBLE JUSTICE BHANUMATI RULE (5.12.2017-CA5150/17) THAT MSMEDF COUNCIL SET UP FOR ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS OF MSMED ACT 2006, DOES NOT HAVE JURISDCTION To pass an award to ensure delayed payment as per sec 15 and 16 of ' The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006'
The case is a claim of Yadav consultancy from Bank of India ascertained by an award passed by MSMEDF Council Pune in arbitral proceedings of MSMED Act 2006, which was upheld by two appellate courts and partially executed in execution proceedings. The matter was before the 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' u/a/136 by SLP. https://bit.ly/2uXL7EJ

The honble judges were of opinion that the matter being of recovery of service charges for services provided as per orders of 'Ld. Recovery officer, DRT, Pune' , therefore defendant should have pursued its grievance of delayed payment with penal interest thereon as per provisions of sec 15 &16 of MSMED Act 2006, from DRT before DRT itself, because as per sec 5 of RDDBFI Act the DRT is headed by 'Ld Presiding officer, DRT, Pune’ who is or has been or is qualified to be a District Judge. The hnble judges have casually without any fear scuttled the limited jurisdiction to DRT as per sec 17 of RDDBFI act.
This leads to infallible conclusion, a precedent, that the Jurisdiction of MSMEDF Council as per MSMED Act 2006 for speedy resolution of disputes of delayed payment with penal interest, as per sec 24 of subsequent, special and progressive MSMED Act 2006 with overriding effect as enacted by Parliament of India to promote public policy of India is not exclusive. And further that an award passed by the MSMEDF Council can be intervened in execution proceedings in contravention of sec 5 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996' and set aside even after it has attained finality in terms of sec 34, 35 and 36 and partially executed.

The appeal was entertained in violation of sec 19 of MSMED Act 2006 ' which stipulates deposition of 75% especially designed by parliament to curb menace of delayed payment to SMEs by prolonged litigation, was a big hurdle to big units who were using delaying tactics of delaying payment to SMEs with prolonged litigation rendering them to sickness and closure. Now big buyers can have their way.

The appeal was knowingly considered when petitioner himself had committed breach of adinterim, which otherwise normally is demeaning the authority of Supreme court and therefore a contempt of court, terms the petition infructuous, and also dismissible as per provisions of Order 39 rule 11 of 'Code of Civil procedure'.

The decision establishes that third party without any legally enforceable contractual arrangement, who was never party to the litigation, who is deceased, whose legal heirs were never made party and not heard but still can be fastened with liability. The appeal was allowed after confirming the death of the party by a death certificate submitted on record.
The Hnble judges fastened liability on deceased auction purchaser to pay maintenance charges of 144 months while auctioned property was with auctioneers themselves, even after payment of total auction price, execution of sale certificate and without getting the possession for 144 months.
The judges ordered that Yadav Consultancy is free to recover its charges from auction purchasers, and judicial bodies, i.e. the 'Ld. Recovery officer, DRT, Pune' and MSMEDF Council Pune.
And the Bank was ordered to initiate proceedings for recovery of amount released to yadav consultancy in execution proceedings of award after adjusting payment payable to yadav consultancy till 24.7.2008.
The Petitioner was represented by famous senior counsel shri Dushyant Dave, who is ex president of Bar association of India, & Mr. Vipin rai and his associates whose face value did a lot of trickery in the delivery of order from hnble judges of 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India'.

Now the executioner court, the district court Pune in DKT 1741/2012 on the basis of order of 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' and pressing application of Bank, has passed an order to arrest and imprison Managing Director of Yadav consultancy for failing to return the total amount received in partial execution of award , even without adjusting the amount payable till 24.7.2008 as per order of 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India'.
Yadav consultancy had invested huge amount by borrowings for the assignment which they have not received. And some which they have received in delivery of justice as accumulated wages, after it was duly ascertained by due process of law, attained finality in the eyes of law is already distributed to repay some amounts and there is nothing left to return the amount .
Yadav Consultancy filed a WP before the 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' WP189/18 for relief of breach of his rights by misrepresentation of orders of 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India'. However the hnble justice Mr Kurian dismissed it.

Yadav Consultancy filed a Review Petition 777/2018with concrete details and an application for perjury against the bank, but it was dismissed.
Yadav consultancy cannot file a Curative, because curative can be filed by only those who can afford to buy a certificate from senior counsels to be submitted along with curative. Yadav Consultancy having already invested huge borrowed amount without receiving payment for 133 months is reeling under tensions and mental pressure, has no money left to survive or repay or pay senior counsel. That access of justice is obstructed by the inability to pay senior counsels.

The 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' having fastened liability on a deceased person has rendered lives vulnerable to arrest, imprisonment and suicide. more