AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 1377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner claiming to be a Micro and Small Enterprise. 2. Although respondent No. 1 is unrepresented today, I find that an objection on the ground of territorial jurisdiction is taken in the reply filed by respondent No. 1. At my request, Mr. Shashank Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, has addressed on this aspect, particularly keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited vs. Mahakali Foods (P) Ltd. Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12884/2020. 3. The disputes between the parties arise out of a Purchase Order dated 22.05.2010 (at page 63 of the petitioner's list of documents) ["the Purchase Order"]. Clause 8 of the Purchase Order provides as follows:- "All disputes are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. FEPL Engineering (P) Ltd. Judgment dated 26.09.2019 in FAO(OS)(COMM) 92/2019. In the said judgment, the Division Bench was concerned with a contract which contained an arbitration clause and a jurisdiction clause. The Division Bench found that these clauses constituted New Delhi as the venue of arbitration and also conferred exclusive jurisdiction upon the Courts in New Delhi. The Court held that, by virtue of Section 18(4) of the MSMED Act, the arbitration was, in fact, conducted by a Facilitation Council outside Delhi, but the said provision would have the effect of shifting the venue of the arbitration and not its seat. The observations of the Division Bench in paragraphs 20 and 23 of the aforesaid decision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es. However, we are not engaged with the said controversy and, in fact, we had made it clear to the learned counsel for the Appellant, during the course of arguments, that the questions relating to the jurisdiction of the MSME Council to act as an Arbitrator and other similar issues will not be examined by us, as the learned Single Judge has not considered any of those aspects and has decided the objection petition only on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. However, this does not mean that the jurisdiction clause agreed between the parties has to be given a go-by. The overriding effect of the MSME Act, cannot be construed to mean that the terms of the agreement between the parties have also been nullified. Thus, jurisdiction of the MSM....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ph 23 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has identified the following salient features of the scheme of Chapter V of the MSMED Act:- "23. Having regard to the purpose, intention and objects as also the scheme of the MSMED Act, 2006 and having regard to the unambiguous expressions used in Chapter-V thereof, following salient features emerge: xxxx xxxx xxxx (vi) The provisions of Arbitration Act, 1996 has been made applicable to the dispute only after the Conciliation initiated under sub-section (2) does not succeed and stands terminated without any settlement between the parties. (vii) Sub-section (1) and sub-section (4) of Section 18 starting with non obstante clauses have an effect overriding the other l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....two interpretations are possible, the one which enhances the object of the Act should be preferred than the one which would frustrate the object of the Act. If submission made by the learned counsel for the buyers that the party to a dispute covered under the MSMED Act, 2006 cannot avail the remedy available under Section 18(1) of the MSMED Act, 2006 when an independent arbitration agreement between the parties exists is accepted, the very purpose of enacting the MSMED Act, 2006 would get frustrated. 28. There cannot be any disagreement to the proposition of law laid down in various decisions of this Court, relied upon by the learned counsel for the buyers that the Court has to read the agreement as it is and cannot rewrite or crea....