IMPORTANT POINT
The benefits under the MSME Act do not apply if the registration under the Act was obtained subsequently.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done though hybrid mode.

2. This petition has been filed by the Petitioner-JKS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. seeking order/writ for setting aside the reference UDYAM-DL-10- 0032365/M/00003 dated 10th September, 2022 made by Respondent No.1-MSME Facilitation Council under section 18(2) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter, "MSME Act") and all other subsequent proceedings initiated pursuant to the aforesaid reference made by the Respondent No.1.

3. Disputes had arisen between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.3-Lamba Techno Flooring Solutions, in which the Respondent No.1 made a reference to arbitration to the Respondent No.2-Delhi Arbitration Centre (DAC).

4. On 2nd December 2022, the Petitioner argued that the MSME Act did not apply as the purchase order and invoice between the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 were dated before Respondent No.3's registration as an MSME on 8th February 2021. On the said date, notice was issued to all Respondents in the present petition.

5. Vide order dated 11th January 2023, it was clarified that no arbitral tribunal was to be constituted till the pendency of the present petition.

6. The Petitioner submits that the purchase order and invoice for supplies were dated 7th July, 2018 and 1st September, 2018. However, Respondent No. 3 had got registered only on 8th February, 2021. Thus, the case of the Petitioner is that the MSME Act would not be applicable.

7. This legal issue has now been decided by this Court recently vide judgement dated 16th March 2023 in W.P.(C) 16891/2022 titled `Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Prakash', and judgment dated 5th July, 2023 in M/s. Grand Mumtaz Hotel v. Deputy Commissioner North East Government of NCT of Delhi (2023:DHC:4523).

8. In Ram Prakash (supra), this Court after considering the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in M/s Shilpi Industries vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, (2021 SCC Online SC 439) and Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation ltd. v. Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd. (unit 2) & Anr., (2022 SCC Online SC 1492) observed as follows:

"7. Heard. In the judgements of Shilpi Industries (Supra) and Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd. (unit 2) & Anr. (2022 SCC Online SC 1492) passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it has been held as under:

"M/s Shilpi Industries vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, (2021 SCC Online SC 439) "26. Though the appellant claims the benefit of provisions under MSMED Act, on the ground that the appellant was also supplying as on the date of making the claim, as provided under Section 8 of the MSMED Act, but same is not based on any acceptable material. The appellant, in support of its case placed reliance on a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of GE T&D India Ltd. v. Reliable Engineering Projects and Marketing, but the said case is clearly distinguishable on facts as much as in the said case, the supplies continued even after registration of entity under Section 8 of the Act. In the present case, undisputed position is that the supplies were concluded prior to registration of supplier. The said judgment of Delhi High Court relied on by the appellant also would not render any assistance in support of the case of the appellant. In our view, to seek the benefit of provisions under MSMED Act, the seller should have registered under the provisions of the Act, as on the date of entering into the contract. In any event, for the supplies pursuant to the contract made before the registration of the unit under provisions of the MSMED Act, no benefit can be sought by such entity, as contemplated under MSMED Act. While interpreting the provisions of Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993, this Court, in the judgment in the case of Shanti Conductors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. etc. v. Assam State Electricity Board & Ors. etc. has held that da