IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Shobhana Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Atlas Cycles Haryana Ltd. – Respondent
Arb.P. 1143 of 2022
Decided On : 10-03-2023
Arbitration Act - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11 - MSMED Act - Section 18(3) - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - NCLT Act - Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited v. Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1492
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for disputes arising from Purchase Orders placed by the respondent. The Facilitation Council refused to act as an Arbitrator due to the pending matter in NCLT under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that as there was no arbitration agreement between the parties, the petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act was not maintainable.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act due to the absence of an arbitration agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Arbitration Act do not apply until the arbitration proceedings are initiated under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, and the existence of an arbitration agreement is essential for invoking jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as not maintainable due to the absence of an arbitration agreement.
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--This petition has been taken up today for hearing as 09.03.2023 was declared as a Court holiday.
2. This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `Arbitration Act.) seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the Purchase Orders that were placed upon the petitioner by the respondent.
3. Admittedly, there is no Arbitration Agreement in writing between the parties contained either in the Purchase Orders or otherwise.
4. The petitioner being aggrieved of the non-payment of its alleged dues by the respondent, invoked the procedure under Section 18(1) of the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred as to the `MSMED Act.) before the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, District North-West, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Facilitation Council.).
5. The conciliation proceedings before the Facilitation Council failed on 20.05.2022. The Facilitation Council, however, refused to act as an Arbitrator or refer the disputes to an institution for appointment of an Arbitrator, observing as under:
"Respondent informed that the company is under insolvency and the matter is before NCLT Principal Bench. Since the matter is pending in NCLT, Claimant may take action as per provisions of NCLT Act. No purpose will be served in keeping the case pending in this council. Hence the case is closed."
6. The petitioner is aggrieved of the above order. It is the case of the petitioner that though proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short, `the Code.) have been filed against the respondent and are pending adjudication, the same have not been admitted and, therefore, the moratorium as contemplated under Section 14 of the Code has not kicked in against the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, therefore, the refusal of the Facilitation Council to act as an arbitrator or to refer the dispute to an institution for the appointment of an arbitrator was incorrect and based on fallacious grounds.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, though admitting that there moratorium has not been declared for the respondent company as the petitions under the Code have yet not been admitted against the respondent company by the learned National Company Law Tribunal, submits that the present petition is not maintainable under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act as there is no Arbitration Agreement between the parties as required in Section 7 of the Arbitration Act. He submits that Section 11 of the Arbitration Act can be invoked only where there exists an arbitration agreement between the parties.
8. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, the provisions of the Arbitration Act are to be applied as if the arbitration was in pursuance of an arbitration agreement referred to in Section 7(1) of the Arbitration Act. He submits that, therefore, Section 11(6)(c) of the Arbitration Act would apply on the failure of the Facilitation Council to act as an arbitrator or to refer the dispute to an institution or centre for arbitration, and the petitioner has rightly invoked the remedy there-under.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
10. As noted hereinabove, admittedly there is no arbitration agreement between the parties as contemplated under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act. Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act reads as under:
"18. Reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council.-
xxxx
(3) Where the conciliation initiated under sub-section (2) is not successful and stands terminated without any settlement between the parties, the Council shall either itself take up the dispute for arbitration or refer to it any institution or centre providing al
The existence of an arbitration agreement is essential for invoking jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act.
The requirement of an arbitration agreement and the specific mechanism provided under Section 18 of the MSMED Act for conciliation and arbitration.
The court's decision emphasized the principle that when disputes are already pending in arbitration before a designated authority, the court may not appoint an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 11(6) o....
The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 has overriding effect over the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the jurisdiction of the Council has been invoked, and the Coun....
The MSMED Act, 2006 provides a statutory framework that allows the Facilitation Council to act as an arbitrator after conciliation, overriding the restrictions of the Arbitration Act, 1996.
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act arises as is evident from sub Section (6) of Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, which inter alia provides that the parties aggrieved by such an arbitral award may ma....
Micro and small enterprises may opt for arbitration even if the MSMED Act applies, but medium enterprises are not governed by its provisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Facilitation Council has the jurisdiction to act as an Arbitrator after the failure of conciliation proceedings under the MSME Act. The ri....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.