JUDGMENT:

1. The Petitioner – National Textile Corporation Ltd. in these two petitions is aggrieved by awards passed by the Facilitation Council i.e. Respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “MSMED Act”). These petitions have been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Arbitration Act”) to challenge the said awards, inter alia, as being without jurisdiction.

2. The Respondent No. 1 in both these petitions is the contesting Respondent. As per the requirements of the MSMED Act, the Petitioner deposited 75% of the awarded amount in both these petitions. The Respondent No. 1 applied for withdrawal of the amounts, but considering the issues involved in the petitions, this Court took up the petitions for final disposal at the stage of admission, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties.

3. The facts leading up to filing of these two petitions are that in the November, 2008, the Petitioner floated a tender for design, fabrication, erection, testing and commissioning of piping systems for steam, condensate, compressed air, roof/soft water, warm water return/LPG/CNG and thermic fluid at Achalpur, Amravati in Maharashtra. The Respondent No. 1 was the successful bidder and, in that context, contracts were executed between the parties, leading to work orders issued on 24th July, 2009, 30th July, 2009 and 23rd December, 2009. The type of contract/work order was stated to be item rate works contract, wherein General and Commercial Conditions were specified for terms of payment at various stages of implementation of the contract/work order on behalf of Respondent No. 1. These documents contained arbitration agreements, which provided for resolution of disputes between the parties through Arbitration and it was stipulated that the Courts at Mumbai would have exclusive jurisdiction in the matter.

4. In pursuance of the bid of Respondent No. 1 being accepted, the aforementioned contracts/work orders were issued in its favour. It is significant that the contracts provided for supply and erection facilities as specified under the terms of the contracts. On 29th September, 2009, the Respondent No. 1 was registered under the MSMED Act and it is the case of the Petitioner – Corporation that it was not informed about the same.

5. The Respondent No. 1 was not satisfied with the final payments under the contracts/work orders and on 04th December, 2013, it sent a letter to the Petitioner-Corporation raising claims under various heads, including idling charges, loss of profit and drawing charges. The parties met in December, 2013 for resolving the disputes, but on 24th December, 2013, the Respondent No. 1 issued notice to the Petitioner raising claims under various heads.

6. On 28th January, 2014 and 17th February, 2014, the Respondent No. 1 made applications under Section 18 of the MSMED Act before the Facilitation Council. On 10th July, 2014, the Petitioner received notice from the Facilitation Council, indicating that the Council was entertaining the applications submitted by Respondent No. 1. In this backdrop, the Petitioner issued a communication to the Facilitation Council, stating that it would be invoking the Arbitration Clause under the General and Commercial Conditions governing the contracts between the parties and requested the Facilitation Council to keep its proceedings in abeyance.

7. On 30th July, 2014, the Petitioner invoked the Arbitration Clause under the General and Commercial Conditions governing the contract and appointed a specific individual as its nominee on the Arbitral Tribunal. This fact was informed to the Facilitation Council and on 21st August, 2014, the Petitioner issued notice to the Respondent No. 1 about appointment of the nominee of the Petitioner and further asked Respondent No. 1 not to proceed before the Facilitation Council.

8. On 27th September, 2