$~81 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3831/2026 and CM APPL. 18713/2026 Date of decision: 25.03.2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

NITIN SETH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Biswas, Mr. Mayank Rai, Advocates.

versus MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL, DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh and Ms.

Shagun Sabharwal, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 18715/2026 (Condonation of delay)

1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same stands allowed. The delay of 17 days in filing the petition stands condoned.

2. The application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 18714/2026 (for exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 3831/2026 and CM APPL. 18713/2026

1. The instant petition seeks the setting aside of an arbitral award “a. Allow the present Writ Petition and issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing and setting aside the Final Arbitral Award dated July 30, 2025 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, Mr. Robin R. David, in Arbitration Case No.

DIAC/4249/07/22, as being without jurisdiction and contrary to law;

b. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the reference dated May 13, 2022 made by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council under Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the arbitral proceedings conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre; c. Pass such other or further order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. The petitioner seeks for setting aside of an Arbitral Award dated 30.07.2025 passed in Arb. Case No. DIAC/4249/07/22, on the grounds that the reference by the Facilitation Council under Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 („MSME Act‟) was ultra vires the provisions of the Act.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the dispute referred by the Facilitation Council pertained to a works contract, which falls outside the purview of the MSME Act. The submission, therefore, is that the Arbitral Award under challenge is wholly without jurisdiction.

4. The said argument could have been raised before the Arbitral Tribunal, and if such an opportunity was not available to the petitioner, it can be made a ground under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”), if the same is permissible. Prima facie, it appears that the argument of the petitioner, if at all, it is found to be meritorious, may, inter alia, be considered as a case of the award being beset with patent illegality. It be noted that the aforesaid is an explicit ground which a given petitioner could take to assail an award under Section 34 of the A&C Act.

5. Learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents is right in placing reliance on a decision passed by this Court in the case of Executive Engineer and Others vs. Bholasingh Jaiprakash Construction Ltd. and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1080. It is also pointed out that almost similar arguments were raised in the said writ petition and in paragraph nos. 9 and 10 thereof, the Court has declined to interfere into the same.

6. For the sake of clarity, paragraph nos.9 and 10 of the said decision are extracted as under:-

“9. In the present case, the Petitioner comes within the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner knew about the dispute. The Petitioner knew that the matter has been referred to the Arbitral Tribunal. There has been complete inaction on the part of the State to challenge the reference proceedings. In fact, the State chose not to participate in the proceedings. After the award was passed, the State