West Bengal State Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council & Ors. For the Petitioners : Mr. Reetobroto Mitra, Advocate Mr. A.K. Acharyya, Advocate Mr. J. Sengupta, Advocate For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Samrat Sen, Sr. Advocate For the Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Debdut Mukherjee, Advocate Ms. Saswati Chatterjee, Advocate Hearing concluded on : February 03, 2017 Judgment on : February 16, 2017 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.: The petitioner questions the jurisdiction of the West Bengal State Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council in purporting to arbitrate in the disputes between the first petitioner and the third respondent. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that, the claim of the third respondent arises out of a transaction of August 1995. The third respondent was paid off by the first petitioner. The third respondent had persisted in making claims against the first petitioner. The claims made by the third respondent are barred by the laws of limitation. In any event, the contract between the first petitioner and the third respondent on the basis of which the third respondent has made its claims, contains an arbitration clause. The first petitioner had appointed an arbitrator in terms of such arbitration clause. In view of the arbitrator being appointed in terms of the arbitration agreement to arbitrate on the disputes between the first petitioner and the third respondent, the West Bengal State Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council has no jurisdiction over such disputes. He relies upon All India Reporter 2012 Bombay 178 (M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited & Anr. v. Micro, Small Enterprise Facilitation Council, through Joint Director of Industries, Nagpur Region, Nagpur) and an unreported decision of the Bombay High Court rendered in Arbitration Petition No. 56 of 2013 (M/s. Hindustan Wires Limited v. Mr. R. Suresh & Anr.) and submits that, the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 does not negate an existing arbitration agreement between the parties. The Council was wrong in issuing the writing dated March 17, 2016 by which the Council had fixed a date for arbitration. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that, the claim of the third respondent had arisen much prior to the coming into effect of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. Moreover, the third respondent was not registered under the Act of 2006 within the time stipulated therein. He further submits that, it is doubtful whether the third respondent comes into the purview of the Act of 2006 at all. He submits that, the Act of 2006 does not have retrospective effect. Learned Advocate appearing for the third respondent submits that, the third respondent was registered as a Small Scale Industrial Unit with the Council on July 15, 2011. He submits that, the Council is entitled to proceed to arbitrate the disputes between the parties. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and the second respondents submits that, the petitioner can raise the contentions made herein before the Council for adjudication. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record, the following issues arise for consideration in the present writ petition: (i) Is the claim of the third respondent live? (ii) When there exists an arbitration agreement between two parties, and one of such parties to the arbitration agreement is an entity within the meaning of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, does the Council established under the provisions of the Act of 2006 have jurisdiction to arbitrate the disputes between such parties on a request being made for such purpose? (iii) To what relief, if any, are the petitioners entitled to? The first issue is taken up for consideration. On the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that the first petitioner had granted a tender for design, manufacturing and installation of Radial Gate of Bakreswar Dam in August 1995 to the third respondent. According to the first petitioner, all running account bills raised by the third respondent were paid by it. T