A.J. Shastri, J.

Rule. Mr. Jaimin R.Dave, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matters are taken up for final disposal today itself.

3. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners for seeking following relief’s:-

"10.(A) Your Lordship may kindly be pleased to admit and allow this petition in the interest of justice;

(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be please to quash and set aside the application for reference dated 21.2.2017 made by the Respondent No.1 to the Respondent No.2 under section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, the subsequent reference dated 20.11.2017 made by the Respondent No.2 under section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and all other subsequent proceedings including the Arbitration Case No.A-009 of 2017;

(C) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ order or direction and restrain the Respondent No.4 from passing any orders in Arbitration Case No. A-009 of 2017 and further be pleased to declare that the reference dated 20.11.2017 made by the Respondent No.2 under section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and all other subsequent proceedings including the orders passed so far in the Arbitration Case No. A-009 of 2017 are without jurisdiction and a nullity;

(D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to restrain the Respondents herein, more specifically the Respondent No. 4 from proceeding with the arbitral proceedings in Arbitration Case No. A-009 of 2017;

(E) Your Lordship may be pleased to pass such other and further relief’s that may be deemed just, fit and proper."

4. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 issued two purchase orders dated 21.09.2010 to respondent No.1 for the purpose of supply of 25KVA,11/0.433KV Sealed Type Distribution Transformer (hereinafter referred to as the "transformers"). One purchase order bearing No. ERPD/P.O/SS14/035/09-10 for the supply of 754 units of transformers at the cost of Rs.2,29,97,000.00/-, and another purchase order bearing No. ERPD/P.O/SS-15/027/09-10 for the supply of 900 units of transformers at the cost of Rs.2,74,50,000.00/-. The said purchase orders were amended to the effect that the units of both the purchase orders were interchanged and the units were to be supplied and the price to be paid for the supply remained intact.

[4.1] The case of the petitioners further that respondents supplied transformers from March, 2010 onwards, however, made it transformers were found to be of poor quality, hence, were rejected and as such transformers were not cleared during quality check test and out of 1654 transformers to be supplied in total. However, under the aforesaid purchase orders, only 968 transformers were supplied/accepted and all the transformers were to be supplied on or before 14.06.2011 and with respect to that the last invoice was raised on 14.06.2011.

[4.2] It is further the case of the petitioners that at the time when the purchase orders were issued however, till last supply of transformers i.e. 14.06.2011, the respondent No.1 who was supposed to be registered as SMALL ENTERPRISE in view of Section 8 of the Act, but was not registered as such. It was noticed by the petitioners that at the much later period on 28/30.03.2012, respondent No.1 got registered as SMALL ENTERPRISE, and subsequently, on 10.08.2012, the respondent No.1 changed his registered office from the State of Gujarat to the State of Maharashtra. The said certificate issued to respondent No.1 under Section 8 from the Office of the Registrar of Companies. The case of the petitioners further is that Section 2 sub-clause