Marinecraft Engineers Private Limited Appearance: For the Appellant : Mr. Kishore Dutt, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Jena, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Sabyasachi Chaudhury, Adv. Mr. S.E. Huda, Adv. Mr. Arjun Mookerjee, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Guha Ray, Adv. Judgment On : 25.11.2022 APO 60/22 P2 Harish Tandon, J. The only point involved in the instant appeal is whether the order passed by the arbitral tribunal constituted under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ruling upon its jurisdiction is an interim award amenable to be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. By the impugned order dated 17.5.2022 passed in AP 442, 2021 the Single Bench dismissed the said application holding that the said impugned order is not an interim or final award and, therefore, an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not maintainable. The salient facts involved in the instant case are required to be adumbrated before we proceed to decide the points canvassed before us by the respective counsels. The appellant is a statutory body constituted under Major Port Trust Act, 1963 and its primary function is to supervise and control the major port at Kolkata and Haldia. A tender was floated for 4 Yearly Survey & Dry Dock Repair of Tug Bijay Singha (hereinafter referred to as "the said ship") at Marin Operation Division, Haldia Dock Complex on 29th March, 2011. The respondent No.3 emerged as successful bidder and a work order was issued on 22.11.2011. The dispute arose between the contracting parties in relation to the release of the security deposits and the purported deductions at the behest of the appellant. Subsequently, a notice was received by the appellant on 24th September, 2015 intimating that the proceeding has been initiated before the West Bengal State Micro and Small Enterprises APO 60/22 P3 Facilitation Council for recovery of the purported claim with further intimation that the conciliation proceedings would commence in terms of the provision of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. The said respondent was called upon to file the statement of facts and after receiving the same the appellant filed two applications i.e., an application raising the question as to the maintainability and the jurisdiction of the said council to adjudicate upon the dispute and further filed the written statement without prejudice to such contention. However, recourse to an amicable resolution of dispute was undertaken by the said council which could not yield any fruitful result, the appellant insisted before the council to decide the question of jurisdiction and the maintainability of the said proceedings and by an alleged interim award dated 12.5.2021 the said council upheld the jurisdiction and directed the parties to proceed on the merit of the claims. The alleged interim award dated 12.5.2021 is challenged by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before this Court in AP 442 of 2021 by the impugned order, the application is dismissed with the finding that the impugned order dated 12.5.2021 is not an interim award and, therefore, the proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not maintainable. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant harps upon the clauses of the general conditions of the contract being the integral part of the tender document containing the arbitration clause and contend that in view of the same, the invocation of the provision under Section 18 of the