Order :

REKHA BORANA, J.

1. The present petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 05.08.2021 (Annex.8) (wrongly mentioned to be 31.08.2021 in the prayer) whereby an Award/order has been passed against the petitioner firm by respondent No.1-Council.

2. A preliminary objection has been raised by Counsel for the respondents regarding maintainability of the present petition. Counsel submits that the impugned order is an ‘Award’ and hence, amenable to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1996’).

3. Counsel while relying upon the Apex Court judgment in M/s India Glycols Limited and Another Vs. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Medchal - Malkajgiri and Others; AIR 2024 SC 285 submits that no order/award/decree passed in terms of Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2006’) can be assailed in a writ petition.

4. Responding to the above preliminary objection, counsel for the petitioners submits that Order dated 05.08.2021 is in fact not an ‘Award’ in terms of the Act of 1996. It is an order passed by the Council and hence, is not amenable to challenge in terms of Section 34 of the Act of 1996.

5. Counsel submits that in terms of Section 18(2) of the Act of 2006, conciliation proceedings ought to have been undertaken by the Council and it is only after the conciliation proceedings having failed that the dispute could have been referred to arbitration. Herein, there was no report to the effect that conciliation proceedings failed and hence, without any reference to arbitration been made, the order impugned cannot be termed to be an ‘Award’ in terms of the Act of 1996.

6. Further, the process as prescribed under Section 18 of the Act of 2006 having not been followed prior to passing of the impugned order, the same is definitely amenable to writ jurisdiction.

7. Heard the Counsels. Perused the Record.

8. Before proceeding further, reproduction of Section 18 of the Act of 2006 would be apt:

“18. Reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any party to a dispute may, with regard to any amount due under section 17, make a reference to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council.

(2) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Council shall either itself conduct conciliation in the matter or seek the assistance of any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services by making a reference to such an institution or centre, for conducting conciliation and the provisions of sections 65 to 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to such a dispute as if the conciliation was initiated under Part III of that Act.

(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 alternate dispute resolution services for such arbitration and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall then apply to the dispute as if the arbitration was in pursuance of an arbitration agreement referred to in sub-section(1) of section 7 of that Act.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council or the centre providing alternate dispute resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as an Arbitrator or Conciliator under this section in a dispute between the supplier located within its jurisdiction and a buyer located anywhere in India.

(5) Every reference made under this section shall be decided within a period of ninety days from the date of making such a reference.”

9. A bare perusal of the above provision reflects th