JUDGMENT :

MANISH PITALE, J.

1. Two questions arise in the present petition, firstly, as to whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition and secondly, as to whether the impugned award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal deserves to be quashed on the ground that the Arbitration proceeding was initiated beyond the period of limitation.

2. The Petitioner herein has challenged impugned award dated 24th September, 2020, passed by the Facilitation Council for Arbitration constituted under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “MSMED Act”). According to the Petitioner, the Arbitration proceeding initiated under the provisions of the MSMED Act at the behest of the Respondent, was hit by limitation and that therefore, the Facilitation Council ought not to have entered into the merits of the matter. It was further submitted that the question of limitation was specifically raised before the Facilitation Council, but the same was not even adverted to, in the impugned award. In the context of preliminary objection as regards territorial jurisdiction raised on behalf of the Respondent before this Court, the Petitioner claims that on a proper interpretation of the MSMED Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as the “Arbitration Act”) it would be clear that there is no substance in the preliminary objection.

3. The facts in the present case are in a narrow conspectus. The Respondent, claiming to be an enterprise covered under the provisions of the MSMED Act, entered into a contract with the Petitioner for supply of fabricated metal in the year 2010. It was in the nature of a sub-contract containing an Arbitration Clause. The Respondent supplied the material between 2010 and 2014. It claimed that certain amounts were due and payable from the Petitioner. In this backdrop, the Respondent approached the Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the MSMED Act for resolution of disputes by Arbitration. The Facilitation Council issued notice to the Petitioner. In the reply filed before the Facilitation Council, the Petitioner took a preliminary objection regarding limitation, on the basis that although the supply of material under the sub-contract was undertaken by the Respondent between 2010 and 2014, with the last payment being released by the Respondent on 02nd November, 2015, the claim was filed beyond the period of three years, in the year 2019. The Petitioner also contested the claim on merits.

4. By the impugned award dated 24th September, 2020, the Facilitation Council allowed the claim of the Respondent and directed that the Petitioner was liable to pay amount of Rs. 07,02,333/- with compound interest. There was no reference to the objection regarding limitation raised on behalf of the Petitioner.

5. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the Petitioner filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. As per statutory requirement under Section 19 of the MSMED Act, the Petitioner deposited 75% of the amount, although by installments as permitted by this Court. It appears that the Respondent claims that the amount so deposited is not equivalent to 75% of the awarded amount. The Respondent filed its reply affidavit in the present petition and raised a preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Court, on the ground that the impugned award was passed by the Facilitation Council under the MSMED Act at Madurai and that therefore, the petition challenging the said award ought to have been filed before the Competent Court at Madurai. Apart from this, the Respondent submitted that the claim preferred by the Respondent before the Facilitation Council could not be said to be barred by limitation, as the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, do not apply to arbitration proceedings under the MSMED Act.

6. Mr. Sabnis, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the preliminary objection regardi