ORDER :

This petition has been filed challenging the Order of Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council dated 14.12.2014.

2. The matter has been referred to Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council by the respondent stating that they are engaged in manufacture, supply erection and commissioning of items like electrostatic precipitator, Fans, Airpreheaters and desalination plaints required for power generation plants. The claimant was allotted the tender floated by the respondent and the claimant supplied the materials as per the tender. The respondent, despite the supply, failed to make payment. Hence, the matter has been referred to the Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council.

3. After hearing both sides, the Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council has passed an Order with mandate interest as contemplated under sections 18 and 19 of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act.

4. Though several grounds have been raised, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant mainly canvassed his argument on the ground of jurisdiction. It is his contention that the Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. It is his main contention that the respondent herein is not registered under Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act and the contract has been entered between the parties way back in the year 1997 and the Act came into force only in the year 2006 and the respondent has been registered under the Act and therefore, he cannot take the benefit of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act for more interest. It is his further contention that prior to Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council proceedings, arbitration proceedings were already initiated and both have given consent for appointment of a sole arbitrator, namely, Senior Counsel Mr.S.Parthasarathy. When the proceedings is pending before the arbitrator, the respondent has moved before the Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and the Council, infact has passed the Order. Hence, it is his contention that on the date of entering into the contract, the respondent is not registered as Micro Small Scale Enterprise as required under the law. Therefore, the applicability of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act cannot be pressed in this case to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Mr.Vishnu Mohan submitted that Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council has took note of all the factual aspects and passed the award. The jurisdiction issue has not been raised in the petition challenging the award. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this petition. However, he has not disputed the fact that prior to referring the dispute to the Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, a sole arbitrator has been appointed by the parties and arbitration proceedings have already been commenced by the arbitrator chosen by both sides. During the pendency of the above proceedings, the matter has been once again referred to the Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council by the respondent.

6. In the light of the above submissions, when the materials perused, it is not disputed that the contract has been executed way back on 24.11.1997 prior to Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act came into force. It is also not disputed that from the year 2014 itself dispute arose between the parties, as a result of which a sole arbitrator has been appointed and there were proceedings before the sole arbitrator till 07.12.2006. These facts have not been disputed. Only after Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act 2006 came into force, the respondent has made a claim before the Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council as contemplated under the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act.

7. It is relevant to note that the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act came into force on 16.06.2006. Section 8 of the Act