1. The Writ Petitions are filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st Respondent, in Order Nos. M&SEFC/CBER/22/2015, M&SEFC/CBER/23/2015, M&SEFC/CBER/25/2015, M&SEFC/CBER/21/2015, M&SEFC/CBER/24/2015, M&SEFC/CBER/20/2015 dated 17.02.2015 and quash the same and to direct the 1st Respondent to refer the claims, dated 27.09.2013, 22.11.2013 of the Petitioners respectively, to Arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act.

2. The case of the Petitioners is as follows:-

(a) The petitioner a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise and is governed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (herein after called as the MSMED Act), which was enacted with a view to provide for facilitating the promotion, development and for enhancing the competitiveness of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises. The assent of the President has been received on 16.6.2006 and was brought into effect from 2.10.2006 in terms of Section 1(2) of the said Act. The object of the Act is that in most developed and developing countries, it is necessary that in India too, the concerns of the entire small and medium enterprise sectors are addressed and the sector is provided with a single legal framework. As per Section 26 of the said Act, the State Government is entitled to appoint such officers and employees for the purpose of the Act. The State Government has also framed rules known as the Tamil Nadu Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Rules, 2006 and has published the same in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 8.12.2006. The 1st Respondent is established under Rule 3 in terms of Section 20 of the MSMED Act, 2006.

(b) The petitioner Enterprise has been engaged in the business of supplying ACSR, AAAC and transformers to TANTRANSCO. On account of the belated payment by TANTRANSCO for the supply made by the petitioner, they are entitled to receive an interest amount of Rs. 18,71,910/-. Interest on delayed payment to MSME's is a right guaranteed under the MSMED Act. Therefore, a reference under the provisions of the MSMED Act was made on 27.9.2013 against the Chief Engineers/Transmission of TANTRANSCO before the first respondent, seeking the above said amount. Section 15 of the Act is the provision that has clothed the petitioner with the right to file the petition before the first respondent. Under Section 15, there is an obligation cast on the "buyer" to make payment on or before the date agreed upon by him and supplier in writing or where there is no agreement in his behalf, before the appointed day. Section 15 also casts an obligation on the buyer to pay compound interest on delayed payments. After the case had been instituted, it went through several stages of litigation and was ultimately decided in favour of the third respondent, wherein the first respondent Council held that it was not fair on the petitioner to claim interest at this belated stage. There appears to be no further reasons to support the impugned order. The order has been passed on 17.2.2015. The process followed by the Council and the manner in which the entire process was handled is in complete violation of the provisions of the MSMED Act and therefore, the impugned order is invalid and non est in law. A bare perusal of the order clearly brings to light the fact that the order is neither in conciliation nor an Arbitration award passed in accordance with Section 18 of the MSMED Act. A perusal of the provision makes it clear that, if it were an order in conciliation, the council can record a settlement between the parties or may record that the settlement has been reached. On the other hand, if it is an arbitration award, it has to be on stamp paper and must be signed by all the arbitrators.

3. Further, if it were to be adjudicated as an arbitration dispute, it should only be adjudicated by an odd number of arbitrators. In violation of these norms, the order has been passed pursuant to hearing by