Hon’ble Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 12.7.2016 passed by the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in Arbitration Case No. 19 of 2005 and the partial award dated 14.3.2015 passed by the respondent No. 3 in Arbitration Case No. 53 of 2014.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was heard and the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar passed the order impugned dated 12.7.2016, whereby it has been held that the respondent No. 3 did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter in as much as Section 18 of The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2006’) had conferred the jurisdiction to the Council to arbitrate the dispute which was situated beyond his jurisdiction and it was further held that all proceedings including the Venue and entire procedure of arbitration contemplated in Contract would stand obliterated by Section 18(4) of the Act 2006. It is next contended that there was a contract for supplying goods between petitioner and respondent No. 4 and copy of supply order is annexed as annexure-1 to the writ petition of which Clause 13 relates to dispute resolution, which provides that if dispute is not resolved amicably, it shall be decided by reference to arbitration by three arbitrators; each party shall appoint one arbitrator and the third arbitration shall be appointed in accordance with the provision of Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph No. 8 of the writ petition wherein it has been stated that the supply order dated 21.6.2011 was signed and executed between the parties at NOIDA; the contract was to be performed at NOIDA; the material which was subject-matter of the supply order was to be delivered at NOIDA, where the race track was situated and further petitioner is also based in NOIDA having its registered office at Gautam Budh Nagar, hence the entire subject-matter of the controversy is situated at NOIDA.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph Nos. 21, 22 and 23 of the order impugned dated 12.7.2016, which deals with the point of jurisdiction as to whether jurisdiction which has been vested to a Court as per the provisions of the Act can been cancelled. It is contended that Section 18 does not create any jurisdictional bar, which may exclude the jurisdiction of NOIDA Court. It is further contended that the jurisdiction will be at the place where the cause of action will arise and reference in this regard has been drawn to Section 20-C of CPC. It is also contended that seat of arbitration and venue of arbitration are two different things as per contract between the parties, duly signed by them and venue of arbitration was NOIDA. It is next contended that seat of arbitration can be anywhere, which cannot be too relevant for the purposes of conferment of jurisdiction. It is further contended that although Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Council was approached for arbitration under the Act 2006, which itself did not taken up the arbitration but referred the matter to the sole arbitrator, would also not confer the jurisdiction at Haryana Court. It is further contended that there was specific contract between the parties regarding exclusion of jurisdiction and NOIDA Court having sole jurisdiction. It is also contended that the Court below has failed to examine the matter in the right perspective with regard to cause of action and dispute and not where the arbitration take place inasmuch as the Court below has failed to take note of the fact that the jurisdiction of Court lies where the cause of action arose, which is not ousted by