JUDGMENT :

HIMA KOHLI, J.

1. The appellant (respondent No.2 in W.P.No.21623 of 2020) has challenged the judgment dated 20.04.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner for quashing the Intimation-cum-Notice dated 22.10.2020 and Notices dated 04.11.2020 and 12.11.2020, issued by the respondent No.2/Micro and Small Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council (in short, ‘Council’), on an application moved by the appellant before the Council to act as an Arbitrator on a claim amount of Rs.8,21,68,340/-, raised on the respondent No.1/writ petitioner.

2. The brief relevant facts of the case as narrated in the impugned judgment are extracted herein below:-

“The petitioner is a Company registered under the laws of Switzerland, having its office at Bonaduz, Switzerland and is a manufacturer and supplier of critical care ventilation solutions for a variety of patient segments, applications and environments across the world. The petitioner-Company does not have any factory within India and therefore, is in the process of setting up a domestic private limited company. The Company has its own consultants, engaged in India, who facilitate the installation of the equipment of the petitioners and undertake related ancillary work. It also supplies the equipment to its distributors who supply to the customers in the private and Government sectors. In August-September, 2018, M/s. Vaishno Enterprises, respondent No. 2 herein, a partnership firm, which provides consultancy services, approached the petitioner-Company and requested to be associated with the Company in implementation of their projects in India. While so, HLL Infra Tech Services Limited, a Nodal Agency of Government of India, had floated a tender, dated 20.08.2018 to purchase/procure 1186 high end ventilators and other medical equipment to be supplied to various hospitals/medical colleges/ departments across India. The petitioner has participated in the said tender by offering its bid through its authorized local agent, M/s. Medelec Health Care Solutions (‘Medelec Solutions’). Eventually, the tender was awarded in favour of Medelec Solutions. Upon sudden resignation of Senior Consultants of petitioner-Company, the respondent No. 2 contacted the petitioner-Company through email and offered their services. After negotiations, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 entered into a Consulting Agreement on 10.02.2020, with a restricted term of six months, agreeing that the respondent No. 2 would act as a consultant for the petitioner-Company and handle such issues as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, dated 10.02.2020. Immediately thereafter, the respondent No.2 had raised various invoices, dated 11.02.2020, 11.04.2020 and 15.05.2020 claiming certain amounts. Even though the respondent No. 2 is not eligible to claim those amounts, the petitioner-Company, in good faith, paid the excessive amount as raised in Invoice Nos. 1 and 4 on 05.05.2020 and 17.06.2020 respectively, as supply was being maintained and LCs were being opened in a rush due to pandemic crisis. Again, the respondent No. 2 raised Invoice No. 5 on 22.06.2020 for an amount of USD 7,11,845.00. As there was no basis for raising of invoices, the petitioner through email dated 24.08.2020 informed the respondent No. 2 that the invoices will be cleared in due course and asked the firm to perform its obligations and to supply the equipments to meet the huge demand. The Consulting Agreement dated 10.02.2020 expired on 10.08.2020. However, as the petitioner-Company is in need of services of respondent No. 2 to meet the demand, a fresh Consulting Agreement was entered with the respondent No. 2 on 24.08.2020 for a period of six months. Subsequently, as there was no help and assistance for the transportation, installations, demonstration of ventilators from the respondent No. 2, the petitioner-Company had to involve other companies to ensure smooth supply of equipments. The