ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question orders dated 07.01.2023 and 22.02.2023 passed by the second respondent-Arbitrator rejecting the application filed by the petitioner to decide the issue of jurisdiction tacit at the outset.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Vikram Unni Rajagopal, appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri. Akash R. Rao, appearing for respondent No. 1.

3. The petitioner claims to be a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The first respondent and the petitioner enter into a contract, pursuant to which, the petitioner issued a work order to the first respondent for painting and scaffolding on 10.05.2018. An invoice of Rs. 6,04,870/- is also raised on 22.05.2018 for payment of the said amount. Therefore, the issuance of the work order and execution of work begins on 10.05.2018 and the invoice for such work is raised on 22.05.2018. After the aforesaid events, the first respondent registers itself to be a Micro Enterprise under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short ‘the MSME Act’). Long thereafter, with regard to certain payment, dispute arose between the petiti