https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458905 The statutory dispute-resolution mechanism under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 was treated as prevailing over a private arbitration clause where a supplier invoked the Council's jurisdiction. The claim was found to remain live because the final bill had not been settled and the security deposit had not been refunded, so it was not barred by limitation on the pleaded facts. The Council was also held competent to proceed with conciliation and, if that failed, arbitration, as Sections 18 and 24 of the 2006 Act override inconsistent contractual arbitration arrangements. In consequence, the writ challenge failed. en-us Thu, 16 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Nov 2024 19:30:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458905 The statutory dispute-resolution mechanism under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 was treated as prevailing over a private arbitration clause where a supplier invoked the Council's jurisdiction. The claim was found to remain live because the final bill had not been settled and the security deposit had not been refunded, so it was not barred by limitation on the pleaded facts. The Council was also held competent to proceed with conciliation and, if that failed, arbitration, as Sections 18 and 24 of the 2006 Act override inconsistent contractual arbitration arrangements. In consequence, the writ challenge failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458905