Registration status as a small enterprise at the time of contract execution is immaterial to the jurisdiction of the Facilitation Council to refer disputes to arbitration under the applicable regulatory framework.

JUDGMENT :

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

1. The present petition seeks for the setting aside of order dated 17.11.2022 (“Impugned Order”) passed by respondent no.2-Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, New Delhi (“Council”), under Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter “Act”), whereby the dispute raised by respondent no.1 has been referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (‘DIAC’).

2. The sole ground raised by the petitioner to assail the Impugned Order is that the contract was entered into between the petitioner and respondent no. 1, prior to the date on which respondent no. 1 registered itself as an MSME. It is his case that the Impugned Order referring the parties to arbitration is impermissible in law.

3. The issue raised in this petition is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in the case of NBCC (India) Ltd. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2025 INSC 54. in paragraph no.5 has framed the following question:-

“5. Issue for our consideration: The question of law for our consideration is whether an MSME cannot make a reference to the Facilitation Council for dispute resolution under Section 18 of the Act if it is not registered under Section 8 of the Act before the execution of the contract with the buyer.”

4. The aforesaid question has been answered in paragraph no.15 thereof, which reads as under:

“15. Having considered the definition of the expression ‘supplier’, and also having considered the classification of enterprises into micro, small and medium with respect to each of which there is a separate legal regime to be suggested by the Advisory Committee and notified by the Central and State Governments, and in view of the discretion specifically vested with the micro and small enterprises for filing a memorandum under Section 8 of the Act, the submission that the Facilitation Council cannot entertain a reference under Section 18 if the enterprise is not registered under Section 8 must be rejected.”

5. It is clear that the fact of an MSME being unregistered, at the time the contract was entered into, or when the alleged invoices were issued, is immaterial to the jurisdiction and powers exercisable by the Council under Section 18 of the MSMED Act. Same was the view taken by this Court in Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. v. KGTS Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. , W.P.(C)13095/2023; order dated 13.01.2026. NTPC Ltd. v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Ors. , W.P.(C) 5195/2021; order dated 22.01.2026. Bharatiya Rail Bijlee Company Ltd. v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Ors. , W.P.(C) 8669/2021; order dated 22.01.2026. Environment Planning and Coordination Organization Virology v. M/s Suresh Goel and Associates and Ors. , W.P.(C) 12469/2024; order dated 11.02.2026 Lalit Narayan Mithila University v. Delhi International Arbitration Centre and Ors. , W.P.(C) 2249/2026; order dated 17.02.2026 Sugam Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Ors. , W.P.(C) 2603/2026 ; order dated 25.02.2026 Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s Vijay Bansal ,8W.P.(C) 12308/2023; order dated 25.02.2026 Sadbhav Infrastructure Project Ltd. v. VCS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. , W.P.(C) 13030/2023; order dated 18.03.2026 MNV Industries Ltd. v. Chairman Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Anr.,NB W.P.(C) 10895/2024; order dated 21.04.2026 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s Vijay Bansal , W.P.(C) 12308/2023; order dated 25.02.2026. Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi International Arbitration Centre and Ors. W.P.(C) 14435/202