K.R.Shriram, J.

1. Plaintiff and defendant no.1 had entered into a contract whereby plaintiff gave a work order to defendant no.1 for laying of RCC sewer pipeline by micro tunneling method. During the work process, the machine of defendant no.1 got stuck and it was plaintiff's case that the machine was defective and plaintiff itself completed the work. Thereafter, plaintiff received an invoice dated 12th October 2017 from defendant no.1 claiming Rs.62,38,138.87/-.

2. On 13th October 2017 defendant no.1, who is a contractor registered under the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act), also lodged a claim with defendant no. 2. Defendant no.2 is a Council constituted by the State of Gujarat under the MSME Act. Defendant no.1 referred its disputes against plaintiff to defendant no.2 under Section 18 of the MSME Act. Apart from its unpaid invoice, defendant no. 1 has also claimed against plaintiff a sum of Rs.65,09,739/- as damages.

Plaintiff responded to the Council through its advocate's letter dated 26th October 2017, inter alia, stating that (a) the Council has no jurisdiction and (b) the claim of plaintiff is barred by limitation. Correspondence was thereafter exchanged finally resulting in plaintiff filing the present suit.

The relief claimed in the present suit, as it stands today, read as under :

(a) That by a permanent injunction of this Hon'ble Court, the defendant no.2 be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from adjudicating and deciding upon the disputes raised by the defendant no. 1 vide letter dated 13th October 2017;

(b) In the alternative of prayer (a), a permanent injunction be granted against the defendant no. 1 from taking any further steps for adjudicating of disputes, which are raised by the defendant no. 1 before the defendant no. 2 vide letter dated 13th October 2017 and/or pursue the claims before the defendant no. 2;

(c) That it be declared that the alleged claim of the defendant no.1 raised vide letter dated 13th October 2017 before the defendant no.2, s barred by law of limitation.

3. On 9th July 2018, on the application of plaintiff, the Court directed defendant no. 2 not to proceed with the hearing of the claim lodged by defendant no.1. The stay has been extended from time to time and still in force. The proceeding before defendant no. 2 is at the stage of conciliation.

4. The reliefs sought in the notice of motion taken out by plaintiff are identical to prayer clauses - (a) and (b) in the suit. Defendant no.1 has filed limited affidavit in reply challenging the jurisdiction of this Court. According to defendant no. 1, the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act 1996). Plaintiff has also filed a chamber summons no. 997 of 2018 seeking leave to amend the plaint, inter alia, contending that plaintiff had suffered damages and therefore, seeking to add a claim for damages in the sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/-. Defendant no. 1 has opposed this chamber summons by filing an affidavit in reply. Arguments were not addressed on the chamber summons but Shri Vashi requested that if the Court does not dismiss the suit or the plaint is not rejected, the amendment sought be allowed.

Defendant no. 1, after the chamber summons was taken out, took out a notice of motion seeking to refer the parties to the Facilitation Council under the MSME Act. The averments in the affidavit in support are basically similar to the affidavit in reply to the notice of motion.

5. Shri Cama, counsel for defendant no. 1 submitted that defendant no. 1 is a supplier as defined under the MSME Act and under Section 18 of the MSME Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any party to a dispute may, with regard to any amount due under section 17, make a reference to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. Shri Cama submitted that once a reference is made, the