* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 17.04.2026 + ARB.P. 2108/2025 JINDAL FERROUS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sarad Kumar Sunny and Ms. Madhav Binzani, Advocates.

versus A TO Z COMPANY .....Respondent Through: Mr. Alok Raj, Mr. Madhav Suri, Mr. Akhand Shresth Pandey, Mr. Anurag Kumar Singh, Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, Mr. Ashutosh Pandey and Ms. Akanksha Singh, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, $~6, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes arising out of the Service Order dated 02.02.2023, Agreement

2. The Agreement is stated to contain a Dispute Resolution Clause, which contemplates adjudication of disputes arising out of the Agreement, inter se the parties, by way of Arbitration. In this regard,

1 Act

reliance is place on Clause 16 of the Agreement, which reads as under:

“16. GOVERNING LAW AND ARBITRATION This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of India. The Parties shall endeavor to settle all disputes and differences relating to and/ or arising out of this Agreement amicably. In the event the Parties fail to resolve any dispute amicably, the same shall be referred to arbitration of a sole arbitrator, mutually appointed by the Parties. The arbitration proceedings shall be in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended from time to time. In the event the Parties fail to mutually consent to the appointment of a sole arbitrator within a period of thirty (30) days, the said sole arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the rules thereunder. The Place of arbitration shall be New Delhi, India.”

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, at the outset, objects to the maintainability of the present Petition on the ground that the Respondent is a registered enterprise under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, MSMED Act, and therefore is fully entitled to all the statutory protections and benefits available thereunder inter alia, proceedings before the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, MSME Facilitation Council

4. Learned counsel for the Respondent further submits that the Respondent has already invoked the jurisdiction of Jharkhand Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council at Ranchi on 22.01.2026 under Section 18 of MSMED Act, vide an Application bearing E-

Filing No. ED-2026-0003544.

5. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the present Petition, filed on 12.12.2025, is therefore statutorily barred by express provision of Section 24 of the MSMED Act, and in this regard places reliance on the Judgements of Hon‟ble Supreme Court, inter alia, in Shilpi Industries and Ors. Vs. Kerela State Road Transport Corporation and Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 439, and Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mahakali Foods (P) Ltd. Unit and Anr., (2023) 6 SCC 401, to submit that the provisions of the Special Act, namely, the MSMED Act herein contains non-obstante clauses, and therefore would prevail over the general provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996.

6. Learned counsel further places reliance upon the Judgement of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Idemia Syscom India Private Limited vs. M/s Conjoinix Total Solutions Private Limited, 2025:DHC:1205, to contend that the disputes raised herein, inter alia, the issue of jurisdiction with respect to the MSMED Act and the nature of the contract would be subject to adjudication under the MSMED Act and the MSME Facilitation Council constituted thereunder, since the jurisdiction of this Court is very circumscribed under Section 11 of the Act. In this regard, reliance is specifically placed on Paragraph Nos.

15 and 16 of the aforesaid Judgement, which read as follow