State of Haryana and others ... Respondents Present: Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl., A.G., Haryana. Mr. S.C. Singhal, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. [1]. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 31.08.2017 passed by respondent No.1, referring the parties to face arbitration before Arbitrator along with all connected proceedings and orders being void, ab initio including award dated 30.12.2017 passed by respondent No.2 and order 1 of 14 ::: Downloaded on 16012022 20:54:20 ::: CWP No.13051 of 2020(O&M) 2 dated 14.02.2019 passed by Additional District Judgecum Presiding Judge, Special Commercial Court, Gurugram along with all consequential execution proceedings being null and void. Further a direction be issued to respondent No.1 to decide the claims of the parties afresh by following mandatory procedure under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as MSMED Act) and Rules framed thereunder. [2]. Respondent No.3 made a reference with claim statement dated 14.04.2017 under Section 18(1) of the MSMED Act before respondent No.1Council. PetitionerCompany was summoned vide notice dated 27.04.2017. Petitioner filed its reply on 12.07.2017. Thereafter, respondent No.4 vide order dated 20.07.2017, directed the parties to settle payment dispute mutually and appear on 09.08.2017. [3]. Respondent No.1 vide letter dated 31.08.2017 observed that Facilitation Council in its 109th meeting held on 09.09.2017 has decided to refer the case to Arbitrator empanelled by the Government order No.2/5/13IIBII2006 dated 24.10.2013, 08.08.2014 and 23.06.2015 as the buyer/supplier failed to come to any kind of conciliation. As per provisions contained under Section 18(5) of the MSMED Act, 2006, the dispute regarding the delayed payment is required to be decided within a period of 90 days by way of conciliation/arbitration. The matter was sent to Arbitrator (Sh. C.B. 2 of 14 ::: Downloaded on 16012022 20:54:21 ::: CWP No.13051 of 2020(O&M) 3 Jaglan, District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) for arbitration preferably within a period of 12 weeks under Chapter V of MSMED Act and Rules framed thereunder. It has also been observed that Section 16 of the MSMED Act regarding imposition of percentage of penal rate of interest on the delayed payment be kept in view. [4]. Sole Arbitrator vide award dated 30.12.2017, directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,80,42,168/ to respondent No.3 towards principal and interest due upto 31.03.2017. Petitioner has been held liable to interest on this amount at the rate provided under Section 16 of the MSMED Act from 01.04.2017 till the date of payment by adjusting an amount of Rs.1,20,000/, which has been paid by the petitioner to respondent No.3 during pendency of the claim petition on 11.12.2017. Petitioner has also been held liable to pay Rs.25,000/ to respondent No.3 towards fee of the Arbitrator. Petitioner duly participated in the arbitral proceedings before the Arbitrator and was represented by an Advocate/legal consultant. [5]. Thereafter, petitioner filed objections under Section 19 of the MSMED Act read with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was also filed before the Additional District JudgecumPresiding Judge, Special Commercial Court at Gurugram. No objections with regard to jurisdiction of the Arbitrator and holding conciliation proceedings in terms of Section 18(2) of the 3 of 14 ::: Downloaded on