Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010032472020 2025:GAU-AS:127 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/965/2020 NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD. NRL COMPLEX, NUMALIGARH, REP. THROUGH ITS DGM (DM) AND E-IN- C, ASSAM. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS. REP. BY MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES, UDYOG BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN-110011. 2:MEMBER SECRETARY MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FELICITATION COUNCIL MMR REGION MUMBAI PIN-400074. 3:M/S METMECH RADIOGRAPHIC INSPECTION PVT. LTD. REGD. OFFICE AT 601 EL-TARA OPPOSITE ODYSSEY-II HIRANANDANI GARDEN POWAI MUMBAI-400076 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the petitioners : Mr. J Roy, Senior Advocate Page No.# 2/5 Mr. S Sarma Advocates for the respondents : Mr. H Gupta Date of hearing & judgment : 06.01.2025 JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. J Roy, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. H Gupta, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.1. None appears on behalf of the respondent No.3 inspite of service of notice. 2. The petitioner herein has assailed the notice dated 31.10.2019 in connection with Petition No. 643/2019 by the respondent No.2 primarily on the ground that the dispute between the petitioner as well as the respondent No.3 can be resolved by way of Arbitration as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 3. It is relevant to take note of from the materials on record that on the basis of a petition being filed by the respondent No.3, the respondent No.2 had issued the notice to the petitioner to appear and submit the defense statement on affidavit and the balance sheet within 15 days from the date of notice, failing which, ex-parte order would be passed. The petitioner had challenged the said proceedings primarily on the ground that there is an Arbitration clause between Page No.# 3/5 the petitioner and the respondent No.3 and the arbitration clause would supersede the provisions of the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ( for short, ‘the MSMED Act, 2006’). 4. It is relevant to take note of that the said issue which has been raised in the instant proceedings is no longer, res integra, in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat State Civil Service Corporation Vs. Mahakali Foods Private Limited, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1492 wherein the Supreme Court observed that Chapter V of the MSMED Act 2006 would override the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Paragraph 34 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced hereinunder: “(i) Chapter-V of the MSMED Act, 2006 would override the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996. (ii) No party to a dispute with regard to any amount due under Section 17 of the MSMED Act, 2006 would be precluded from making a reference to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, though an independent arbitration agreement exists between the 19 parties. (iii) The Facilitation Council, which had initiated the Conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act, 2006 would be entitled to act as an arbitrator despite the bar contained in Section 80 of the Arbitration Act. (iv) The proceedings before the Facilitation Council/institute/centre acting as an arbitrator/arbitration tribunal under Section 18(3) of MSMED Act, 2006 would be governed by the Arbitration Act, 1996. Page No.# 4/5 (v) The Facilitation Council/institute/centre acting as an arbitral tribunal by virtue of Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, 2006 would be competent to rule on its own jurisdiction as also the other issues in view of Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. (vi) A party who was not the ‘supplier’ as per the definition contained in Section 2(n) of the MSMED Act, 2006 on the date of entering into contract cannot seek any benefit as the ‘supplier’ under the MSMED Act, 2006. If any registration is obtained subsequently the same would have an effect prospectively and would apply to the supply of goods and rendering services subsequent to the registration.” 5. Taking into account the above, the challenge to the impugned notice dated 31.10.2019, in the opinion of this Court, on the ground so set out in the instant proceedings does not hold any merit. Accordingly, the writ petition fails, for which, the same stands dismissed. 6. Before parting with the records, this Court, however, observes that the dismissal of the writ petition by this Court shall not affect any defence which the petitioner may take before the respondent No.2 or any proceedings initiated under the provisions of the MSMED Act 2006. 7. With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. 8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Page No.# 5/5 JUDGE Comparing Assistant