SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 3392

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J
M/S MOBISY TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD. – Appellant
Versus
M/S J G HOSIERY PVT LTD. – Respondent
CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 311 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. CHRISTIPHER.E.
For the Respondents: SRI. ABHILESH. J.

Micro and small enterprises may opt for arbitration even if the MSMED Act applies, but medium enterprises are not governed by its provisions.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - MSMED Act, 2006 - Section 18 - Dispute resolution - Petitioner sought appointment of arbitrator as the Respondent contested the existence of any disputes to be arbitrated - The court held that micro and small enterprises may invoke MSMED Act, but until such invocation, arbitration agreements remain operative - Medium enterprises do not fall under the MSMED Act provisions. (Paras 10.19, 10.20, and 12.1)

(B) Jurisdiction - Micro and small enterprises are not mandatorily required to invoke the Facilitation Council for all disputes; such mechanism comes into play only when a reference is made. (Paras 10.19.1 and 10.19.2)

(C) Legal Interpretation - The court ruled that the absence of reference to the Facilitation Council allows parties to retain their arbitration rights. (Paras 10.20 and 12.12)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner and Respondent entered into an agreement containing an arbitration clause; there were disputes regarding amounts allegedly due for services rendered. The Respondent denied any dispute existed and refused to appoint an arbitrator.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that there was a valid arbitration agreement under which disputes must be referred to arbitration, as the statutory mechanism under MSMED was not invoked.

Issues: Whether medium enterprises are required to proceed under Chapter V of the MSMED Act and if the arbitration clause invocation was valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that micro and small enterprises may opt for arbitration without the need to invoke the Facilitation Council first, while confirming that medium enterprises do not fall under MSMED Act's purview.

Result: CMP Allowed; sole arbitrator appointed for dispute resolution.

CAV ORDER

1. The Petitioner is before the Court seeking for the following relief:

“To appoint an Arbitrator as per clause 11.10 of the Agreement from the Panel of Arbitrators from the Bengaluru Arbitration Centre to resolve the dispute arising out of the Agreement dated 21.02.2023 at Annexure-B between the parties, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. The Petitioner and Respondent having entered into a ‘Bizom Customer Agreement’. The said Agreement is governed by clause 11.10, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

11.10. Dispute resolution: In the event of any dispute arising out of or in relation to this Agreement, the Parties shall try and resolve the dispute amicably in good faith through negotiations. In case the dispute is not resolved within a reasonable time, the Parties agree to submit the same for arbitration. The arbitration proceedings shall be governed by the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 and its amendments thereafter by a sole arbitrator to be appointed by mutual Agreement between the Parties. Arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in English language and the place, venue and seat shall be at Bengaluru. The award of the arbitration proceedings shall be final and binding on the Parties.

3. There being a dispute between the parties, the Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause vide notice dated 12.12.2025 and nominated the arbitrator, same not having been accepted by the Respondent, contending that there are no disputes which are required to be arbitrated and no amounts are required to be paid by the Respondent, the Petitioner has filed the above petition.

4. Notice having been issued, the Respondent entered an appearance and filed its objections.

5. The submission of Sri. Christopher, learned counsel for the Petitioner, is that,

5.1. The ‘Bizon Customer Agreement’ is governed by an arbitration clause; disputes having arisen, the matter will be required to be referred to arbitration as per clause 11.10, which is extracted hereinabove.

5.2. He relies upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Porwal Sales -v- Flame Control Industries , (2019 SCC Online Bom 1628), more particularly para 22 and 28 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

22. Now coming to the next submission as advanced on behalf of the Respondent on the MSMED Act. Learned counsel for the Respondent has argued that in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the MSMED Act, this Court would not have jurisdiction to entertain this Petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act . In support of this submission, learned counsel for the Respondent has placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Paper & Board Convertors through partner Rajeev Agarwal v. U.P. State Micro and Small Enterprise2; in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. The Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitations Centre of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court3; and in Welspun Corporation Ltd. v. Micro and Small, Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, Punjab of the learned Single Judge of Punjab and Harayana High Court4. The contention as urged on behalf of the Respondent referring to these decisions is that (4) of MSMED Act creates a bar on the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain any application under Section 11 of the Act and/or that the arbitration agreement between the parties stands obliterated, extinguished and superseded by the provisions of sub-section (4) of of MSMED Act.

23. To appreciate this submission as urged on behalf of the Respondent, Sections 17 and 18 of MSMED Act is required to be noted, which reads thus:

“Section 17 - Recovery of amount due

17. For any goods supplied or services rendered by the supplier, the buyer shall be liable to pay the amount with interest thereon as provided under section 16.

Section 18 - Reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top