The court's decision emphasized the principle that when disputes are already pending in arbitration before a designated authority, the court may not appoint an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

JUDGMENT :

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. This is an Application preferred by the applicant under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to seek the appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate their disputes arising out of their agreement dated 03.03.2021, whereunder the respondent agreed to supply and install goods, i.e. windows/doors and skylight at the site of the applicant. The arbitration agreement is contained in the Terms & Conditions which formed part of the offer made by the respondent dated 03.03.2021, which was accepted by the applicant.

2. When the arbitration application was taken up for consideration on 22.07.2022, this Court passed the following order:

“Mr. Akshay Pradhan, the learned counsel for the applicant.

The applicant has preferred the present application, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to seek appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes, which have arisen between the parties, under their agreement. The said agreement contains an arbitration agreement in Clause 8.

The applicant has placed on record the correspondences undertaken between the parties. From the same, it appears that the respondent claims to be a Small Scale Enterprise, and the respondent has stated that it is in the process of invoking Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. Section 18 of the said Act begins with a non-obstante clause and it states that 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.

Prima-facie, it appears that in the light of the aforesaid, it is open to the applicant as well to invoke the remedy available under Section 18 of the said Act, despite there being an arbitration agreement contained in the agreement between the parties.

Counsel for the applicant wishes to examine the position, and address this Court.

At his request, list on 29.07.2022.”

3. Thereafter, notice was issued to the respondent on 29.07.2022. The respondent filed its reply, contesting this Application, disclosing that on the respondent invoking Section 18(1) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, the office of the Member Secretary-cum-General Manager, District Level, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, S.A.S. Nagar, issued notice to the applicant on 06.09.2022, returnable on 06.10.2022.

4. On 13.01.2023, this Court passed an order, which reads as follows:

“Mr. B.D. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.

Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the respondent.

Today, Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the respondent, tendered in the Court another Communication dated 09.01.2023 issued by the office of the Member Secretary-cum-General Manager, District Level Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council S.A.S. Nagar. This communication reads as follows:

“Subject: Information Regarding Arbitration Proceedings in Case of Pranav Doors and Windows vs. Mondrian High School [Case No. PB/20/S/SA/00177] pending before the council.

In reference to your application dated 09.01.2023 on the above noted subject.

The Government of Punjab has empanelled 20 Arbitrators, vide its Order Endst. No. Commerce/Arbitrator/2022/4885-A dated 12.10.2022. (COPY ENCLOSED)

However, till date no particular Arbitrator has been appointed particularly for this district i.e. S.A.S. Nagar (Punjab) and the proceedings under above captioned case are presently being heard in the Council only. The next date for hearing in this case is 30.03.2023 before the Council. In this regard, as and when, any arbitrator is appointed by the Council, the same shall be communicated duly to the concerned parties.”

Reading of the aforesaid communication shows that on the one hand, the Government of Punjab has empanelled 20 Arbitrators, list of whom has been enclosed, on the other hand, the lette