PunjabHaryana High Court The State Of Punjab Through Executive ... vs M/S Enviro Infra Engineer Pvt Ltd ... on 11 November, 2022 ARB No. 373 of 2018 (O&M) 1 AT CHANDIGARH 223 ARB No. 373 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.11.2022 THE STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUNJAB WATER SUPPLY SRI MUKTSAR SAHIB .....Petitioner Vs M/S ENVIRO INFRA ENGINEER PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SH MANISH JAIN .....Respondent Present: Mr.Sanjiv Soni, Addl.A.G.Punjab along with Mr.Parkash, SDO, Division No.2, Sri Muktsar Sahib. Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocate for MSMED. Ms.Isha Goyal, Advocate for the respondent. **** RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") for appointment of an Arbitrator. Vide order dated 01.03.2019, proceedings before the Facilitation Council, Delhi under the provisions of MSMED Act were stayed. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on 17112022 02:14:59 ::: ARB No. 373 of 2018 (O&M) 2 has failed to undertake the allotted work and despite his having not undertaken the work of operation and maintenance of the STPs, submitted three bogus bills for an amount of Rs.30,70,000/, Rs.29,70,000/ and Rs.28,70,000/ after a gap of about 5 years. The respondent has also claimed refund of security amount and moved a reference under Section 18(A) of the MSMED Act, 2006 before the Facilitation Council, New Delhi. The parties are at some variance in respect of status of proceedings before the Facilitation Centre, New Delhi. The fact remains that vide order dated 01.03.2019, proceedings before the Facilitation Council, New Delhi were stayed. Evidently, the proceedings before the Facilitation Council have not been terminated so far. In view of order dated 01.03.2019, those proceedings are kept in abeyance. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to email dated 12.09.2019, submitted that in view of non filing of statement of claim, the corresponding arbitration fee and miscellaneous expenses despite reminders, the proceedings before the Facilitation Centre have been closed. This fact has been refuted by learned counsel for the respondent on the strength of email dated 10.11.2022 to the effect that proceedings are still pending and the claimant had paid its share towards arbitral fee in arbitration case reference No.DIAC/2460/0519 and DIAC/2461/0519 as per the provisional assessment of the arbitration centre. Be that as it 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on 17112022 02:14:59 ::: ARB No. 373 of 2018 (O&M) 3 may, the ratio of M/s Silpi Industries etc. vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and another etc. 2021 (3) RCR (Civil) 394 would squarely apply to the present case, where it has been held that the provisions of MSMED Act will prevail as the Act has overriding effect in terms of Section 24 of the Act. MSMED being a special statute and shall have overriding effect visavis Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is a general Act. Perusal of para Nos. 18, 20, 23 and 26 of the aforesaid judgment would indicate that there is a provision for counter claim in the Act itself, which is a beneficial legislation. For ready reference para No.23 of the Act is reproduced herein as under: "23. The obligations of the buyer to make payment, and award of interest at three times of the bank rate notified by Reserve Bank in the event of delay by the buyer and the mechanism for recovery and reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and further remedies under the 2006 Act for C.A.Nos.15701578 of 2021 etc. the party aggrieved by the awards, are covered by Chapter V of the 2006 Act. The provisions of Section 15 to 23 of the Act are given overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. From the Statement of Objects and Reasons also it is clear that it is a beneficial legislation to the small, medium and mi