MSME protection under the Act depends on enterprise status and supply period, not on pre-contract registration timing.

Under the MSMED Act, 2006, supplier-protection provisions are governed by the enterprise's statutory status and the supply or service transaction, not by whether Section 8 registration existed before the contract. Registration supports the wider regulatory framework, while Sections 15 to 18 create the delayed-payment, interest, recovery, and reference machinery for protected suppliers. Accordingly, a Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council may refer a dispute to arbitration even if registration was obtained after the contract, provided the goods were supplied or services rendered within the Act's protective regime. Where the work continued after registration, claims relating to that post-registration period can fall within the Council's jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council had jurisdiction to refer the dispute to arbitration where the supplier obtained registration under Section 8 after the contract was entered into and the supplies and services were completed after registration.

Analysis: The definition clauses in the MSMED Act, 2006 have to be read contextually in light of the opening words of Section 2. The statutory scheme shows that registration under Section 8 serves the larger regulatory and developmental framework, while Sections 15 to 18 create the payment, interest, recovery, and reference machinery for protection of suppliers. The right to claim delayed payment and to invoke the Council does not depend on registration having preceded the contract. What matters is whether the enterprise answers the statutory description and whether the goods were supplied or services rendered within the protective regime of the Act. The record also showed that the work continued after registration and the arbitral tribunal had found that the claims related to the period after registration.

Conclusion: The Council had jurisdiction to make the reference under Section 18, and the challenge based on post-contract registration failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of after rejecting the jurisdictional objection on merits, while the No Claim Certificate issue was left to be considered in the pending proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the MSMED Act, 2006, the applicability of the supplier-protection provisions depends on the enterprise's status and the supply or service transaction, not on whether registration under Section 8 pre-dated the contract.

---