VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1. The petitioner (hereafter ‘RIL’) has filed the present petition impugning the reference (hereafter ‘the impugned reference‘) made by respondent no.1 (hereafter ‘the Council‘) on 15.02.2017, whereby the disputes between RIL and respondent no.2 (hereafter ‘GCIL‘) were referred to arbitration to be conducted under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (hereafter ‘DIAC’). The impugned reference was made by the Council in terms of the provisions of Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereafter ‘the Act‘) as the Council found that the efforts for an amicable conciliation of disputes between RIL and GCIL had failed.

2. RIL has assailed the decision of the Council to make the impugned reference, essentially, on two grounds. First, it claims that the disputes between RIL and GCIL, which have been referred to arbitration, had arisen in respect of transactions that were entered into in the year 2010. At the material time, GCIL was not registered under the Act and, as a consequence, was not a ‘supplier‘ as defined under Section 2(n) of the Act, and, therefore, the Council has no jurisdiction to refer the subject