https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314199 A petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act challenging an award of a Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council was held not maintainable before the Delhi High Court because the statutory reference arose under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006. The Court held that, where no separate arbitration clause fixed a different seat, the MSMED Act's statutory mechanism overrides inconsistent contractual terms, and the seat follows the Facilitation Council conducting the arbitration. As the Council acted at Nagpur, territorial jurisdiction lay there, not in Delhi, and the petition was dismissed as not maintainable. en-us Mon, 30 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 May 2024 06:26:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314199 A petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act challenging an award of a Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council was held not maintainable before the Delhi High Court because the statutory reference arose under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006. The Court held that, where no separate arbitration clause fixed a different seat, the MSMED Act's statutory mechanism overrides inconsistent contractual terms, and the seat follows the Facilitation Council conducting the arbitration. As the Council acted at Nagpur, territorial jurisdiction lay there, not in Delhi, and the petition was dismissed as not maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 30 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314199