IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN th ON THE 15 OF JANUARY, 2026 ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 21 of 2011 M/S BISLERI INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS Versus M/S SUNPET PACK JABALPUR AND OTHERS WITH ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 22 of 2011 M/S BISLERI INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWARY AND OTHERS Versus M/S SUNPET PACK, JABALPUR PVT. LTD, AND OTHERS ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 23 of 2011 M/S BISLERI INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWARY AND OTHERS Versus M/S SUNPET PACK, JABALPUR PVT. LTD, AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar – Advocate for the appellant in all the appeals.

O R D E R

These appeals arise out of dispute between same parties but in relation to different supply orders. As identical issues arise in these appeals, therefore they are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from AA No.21 of 2011.

2. The facts in brief for the purpose of disposal of these appeals is that the appellant is a packaged drinking water manufacturing company and entered into a trademark agreement dated 06.09.2002 with the respondent No.2 to use the appellant's trademark and sell packaged drinking water under the label and brand name of appellant.

3. Certain supplies were made by the respondent No.1-claimant before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (“MSME Council” for short) under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (‘MSME Act’ for short) alleging that the claimants supplied various empty water bottles to the respondent No.2 for the purpose of selling packaged drinking water and since there was an agreement between the appellant and the respondent No.2, the appellant was also impleaded as party also alleging that certain transactions were made directly with the appellant and therefore irrespective of Clause-5 of the agreement between the appellant and the respondent No.2 whereby the appellant was not liable for any third party claims against respondent No.2, in view of certain direct transactions between the appellant and the respondent No.1-claimant, the appellant was also impleaded.

4. The claim before the MSME Council was filed on 05.10.2007 and in the claim application the supplies were stated to have been made in the year 2002 and certain payments were made up to the year 2004. Even as per claim application all the supplies were made prior to enforcement of MSME Act, 2006 and neither the agreement with the claimant was entered into after enforcement of MSME Act, nor any supply was made after enforcement of MSME Act.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued this case on various grounds on merits like the claim before the MSME Council being barred by limitation, there being no privity of contract between the appellant and the claimant and the award being non-speaking, etc. However, he also raised a preliminary ground that the very claim before the MSME Council was without any jurisdiction and the MSME Council did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the claim and enter into reference in the said claim because the said claim did not fall within the purview of MSME Act, 2006. It is argued that even the appellate Court has scuttled the said objections on the ground that no such objection was taken before the MSME Council and such objection cannot be taken before the court for the first time.

6. As this ground goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the MSME Council, therefore this Court proceeds to adjudicate this ground first and only if this ground is not sustained, then the other grounds shall be taken up.

7. The District Court while dealing with the application under section 34 of Act of 1996 against the award of MSME Council has held that this objection regarding jurisdiction of MSME Council could not have been taken for the first time before the Court.

8. The counsel for the appellant submits that such objection was duly contained in the reply filed by the present appellant befor