$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 18^th March, 2026 Pronounced on: 09th April, 2026 + ARB.P. 2129/2025 M/S JUBILANT MARKETING PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Sonal Sarda, Ms. Sunidhi Gupta, Ms. Jayantika Singh, Advocates Mob: 8447078202 Email: sonal.ssarda@gmail.com versus M/S ROBBINS TUNNELING AND TRENCHLESS TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Utsav Saxena and Mr. Kartikey Singh, Advocate Mob: 9597753146 Email: saxenautsav96@gmail.com CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

JUDGMENT

MINI PUSHKARNA, J.

INTRODUCTION:

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), read with Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSMED Act”), seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator for the adjudication of the disputes between the parties, with respect to non-

payment of outstanding dues by the respondent.

Brief Facts of the Case:

2. Relevant facts, as culled out from the pleadings on record, are as follows:

2.1. The petitioner, i.e., M/s. Jubilant Marketing Pvt. Ltd., is registered as a small enterprise with the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (“MSME”), Government of India, under the MSMED Act.

2.2. The petitioner, in January, 2018, commenced business with the respondent for supply of conveyor structures, wherein, pursuant to work orders issued by the respondent, the petitioner would supply goods as requested, and raise invoices accordingly, to the respondent.

2.3. On 06^th June, 2023, the respondent made a payment of Rs. 8 Lacs, after which no payment has been received by the petitioner.

2.4. Aggrieved by the respondent’s repeated failure in making the outstanding payments, the petitioner, in order to recover its alleged dues of Rs. 77,04,901/- against 14 invoices, approached the Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council, New Delhi (“MSEF Council”), by filing an application bearing Application No. UDYAM-DL-11-0001801/S/00001 under Section 18(1) of the MSMED Act.

2.5. By way of notice dated 24^th June, 2024, the MSEF Council admitted the petitioner’s application, and thereby, directed the respondent to clear the outstanding dues, not later than 15 days from the receipt of the notice. Subsequently, the MSEF Council vide E-mail dated 02^nd September, 2024 converted the application filed by the petitioner into a case bearing MSEFC Case No. DL/11/S/NDC/01219.

2.6. Thereafter, the MSEF Council issued multiple notices to the parties therein under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act, intimating the holding of a meeting to settle the matter and thereby, requesting the parties to appear in person.

2.7. By way of the order dated 22^nd April, 2025, the MSEF Council categorically recorded that in the meeting held on 17^th April, 2025, the respondent had submitted that the payment was pending and sought time of 7 to 10 days to file its reply. Thus, the MSEF Council gave one final opportunity to the respondent to file its final submissions, failing which the case would be forwarded to arbitration for further necessary action.

2.8. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent effectively failed to file a response within the appropriate timeline and the MSEF Council subsequently, has not appointed any arbitrator since its last order dated 22^nd April, 2025. Therefore, the present petition has come to be filed before this Court for appointment of an arbitrator.

Submissions of the Petitioner:

3. The submissions made by the petitioner, in the present case, are as follows:

3.1. The petitioner has filed its application under Section 18 of the MSMED Act before the MSEF Council, New Delhi, which has failed to appoint an arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties.

3.2. A statutory arbitration agreement exists between the parties, as Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, creates an arbitration agreement as envisaged under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act between the enterprises co