Panexcell Clinical Lab Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Kunjal Patil i/b. Kings Stubb & Kasiva for the Applicant. Mr.Adhiraj Malhotra a/w. Pranangana Barua i/b. Bharucha & Partners for the Respondent. CORAM : B.P.COLABAWALLA, J. DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2021. P. C.: 1. The above Arbitration Application is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Arbitration Act") seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes and differences arising out of "Master Services Agreement" dated 28th June, 2018. (Exhibit "A" to the Application). 2. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent Ganesh Lokhande 1/6 16CARAP9621.doc No.1 raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present Application. He submitted that admittedly, Respondent No.1 is a Small Scale Enterprise registered under the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short "the said Act") on 11th April, 2014. He submitted that under the said Act, there is a statutory Arbitration contemplated (under Sections 18 read with Section 17 of the said Act). This Arbitration is held by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council itself or it may refer the dispute to any Institution and/or Center providing Alternate Dispute Resolution services for Arbitration. He submitted that Respondent No.1 has already approached the said Facilitation Council by filing a reference before it, bearing No. UDYAMMH330025263/S/00001 on 19 th August, 2021. In this factual scenario, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 submitted that whatever claim the Applicant may have against Respondent No.1, it can agitate the same before the Facilitation Council by filing a counter claim, if required. 3. In support of his submissions, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 relied upon a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Silpi Industries Etc. V/s. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Another [2021 SCC Online SC 439], and more particularly paragraphs 21, 22, 23 & 24 thereof, which read thus: Ganesh Lokhande 2/6 16CARAP9621.doc "21. It is also further to be noted that if we do not allow the counter claim made by the buyer in the proceedings arising out of claims made by the seller, it may lead to parallel proceedings before the various fora. On one hand, in view of beneficial legislation, seller may approach the Facilitation Council for claims, in the event of failure of payment by the buyer under provisions of 2006 Act, at the same time, if there is no separate agreement between the parties for any arbitration in a given case, buyer may approach the civil court for making claims against the seller, or else if there is an agreement between the parties for arbitration in the event of dispute between the parties, parties may seek appointment of arbitrator. At the same time if the seller is covered by definition under micro, small and medium enterprises, seller may approach the Facilitation Council for making claims under the provisions of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006. In such event, it may result in conflicting findings, by various forums. 22. In second set of cases it is clear that when the seller approached the Facilitation Council making certain claims against the buyer, buyer after his appearance, ha