1. All these four Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order in view of the common question of law involved in all the cases.

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned counsel for second respondent. None appeared for the first respondent.

3. The petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of paper and paper products. In the course of its business, the petitioner company was approached in the year 1997 by the second respondent offering to supply optical whitening agent (hereinafter referred to as ‘goods’) which is used as raw material in the manufacture of paper and paper products. After negotiations, both the parties agreed for the supply of goods. The petitioner company placed orders on the second respondent for supply of goods and the second respondent supplied the goods to the petitioner between November, 1997 to March, 2001 and raised several bills. One of the terms of the supply was that after supply of the goods, the petitioner company would inspect them and subject them to quality tests. After the quality is confirmed, the petitioner would avail a credit period of 60 days after which it would release the payments to the second respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner company was making payments to the second respondent after satisfying itself of the quality of the goods supplied by it.

4. While so, the second respondent initiated proceedings in Case Nos.80, 81, 82 and 83 of 2003 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Facilitation Council (for short, the Council), the first respondent, claiming that there was a delay in making payments to it by the petitioner company and consequently it is entitled to interest on delayed payments as provided under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 (for short, Act of 1993). The petitioner contested the said case by raising various pleas relating to jurisdiction, limitation and full and final settlement of all its claims against the second respondent. When the cases were pending before the Council, the Parliament enacted ‘Micro, Small Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006’ (for short, MSMED Act) repealing the Act of 1993.

5. Section 18 of the MSMED Act reads as follows:

“Section 18:-Reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council:-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any part to a dispute may, with regard to any amount due under Section 17, make a reference to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council.

(2) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Council shall either itself conduct conciliation in the matter or seek the assistance of any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services by making a reference to such an institution or centre, for conducting conciliation and the provisions of sections 65 to 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to such a dispute as if the conciliation was initiated under Part III of that Act.

(3) Where the conciliation initiated under sub-section (2) is not successful and stands terminated without any settlement between the parties, the Council shall either itself take up the dispute for arbitration or refer to it any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services such arbitration and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), shall then apply to the dispute as if the arbitration was in pursuance of an arbitration agreement referred to in sub-section (1) of Section of that Act.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council or the centre providing alternate dispute resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as an Arbitrator or Conciliator under this section in a dispute between the supplier located within its jurisdiction