MSME Act jurisdiction: post-registration services can trigger exclusive Facilitation Council forum despite an earlier arbitration clause.

For claims under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, the decisive factor is whether the goods or services for which payment is sought were supplied after registration as a micro or small enterprise. If the liability arises from post-registration services, the supplier may invoke the Act even if the underlying contract pre-dated registration, and section 18 gives the Facilitation Council overriding and exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute. A prior contractual arbitration clause does not displace that statutory forum where the claim falls within section 17. The document states that this principle supports setting aside unilateral arbitration and awards made outside the Council's exclusive domain.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Sole Arbitrator had jurisdiction to decide the dispute when a reference under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 was already pending before the Facilitation Council, and whether the petitioner could invoke the protection of the Act for claims arising from services rendered after registration as a micro enterprise though the underlying contract pre-dated such registration.

Analysis: The claim depended on whether the petitioner was a "supplier" for the purposes of the Act and whether the relevant liability arose from services rendered after registration. The payment claim related to work completed after the petitioner's registration as a micro enterprise, and the demand was linked to bills and completion certificates issued after that date. The statutory scheme of sections 15, 17 and 18 shows that liability to pay arises from supply of goods or rendering of services, and section 18 confers an overriding and exclusive forum on the Facilitation Council for disputes concerning amounts due under section 17. The later contract date did not disqualify the petitioner, since the controlling consideration was that the services for which payment was sought were rendered after registration. The reasoning is consistent with the principles applied in the authorities relied upon, which recognise that the Act applies to supplies or services rendered after registration and that the special statute prevails over contractual arbitration.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to approach the Facilitation Council as a supplier under the Act, and the Facilitation Council had exclusive jurisdiction over the reference. The unilateral arbitration and the resulting award were contrary to the statutory scheme and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The award was invalidated because the dispute fell within the exclusive domain of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, and the contract's earlier date did not defeat the petitioner's statutory claim for post-registration services.

Ratio Decidendi: For claims under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, the decisive factor is whether the goods or services for which recovery is sought were supplied after registration as an enterprise under the Act; if so, section 18 vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Facilitation Council notwithstanding an earlier contractual arbitration clause.

---