M/s. Creative Entrepreneurs A­3/332, Sector­8, Rohini, Delhi­110085. ... Respondent PETITION UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 DATE OF INSTITUTION : 23.01.2017 DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 12.07.2022 DATE OF DECISION : 29.08.2022 JUDGMENT 1. The applicant/petitioner (henceforth 'petitioner') has filed this application/petition (henceforth 'petition') against the non­applicant/respondent (henceforth 'respondent') under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth 'Arbitration Act, 1996'), challenging the following:­ (a) Order dated 05.09.2015 passed by Sh. Jayant K. Mehta, Ld. Sole Arbitrator in favour of the respondent, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 16 of the Arbtn No.113/17 M/s. Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd. v M/s. Creative Entrepreneurs Page No.1 of 10 Arbitration Act, 1996; and (b) Arbitral Award dated 21.10.2016 passed by Sh. Jayant K. Mehta, Ld. Sole Arbitrator in favour of the respondent. 2. The arguments qua this petition were heard during a series of dates, starting from 05.10.2021 and ending on 12.07.2022. During the hearing, two questions had emerged for adjudication by this Court:­ (a) Whether the impugned Order dated 05.09.2015 and the Arbitral Award dated 21.10.2016 are liable to be set­aside because in respect of the contract between the parties, the respondent had no basis to invoke the dispute resolution/beneficial provisions of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (henceforth 'MSME Act') and because as such, Sh. Jayant K. Mehta, Ld. Sole Arbitrator, who had entered reference on the basis of the dispute resolution provisions of MSME Act, had no jurisdiction to conduct the arbitration proceedings between the parties? (b) If the answer to the first question lies in the affirmative, how the sum of Rs.36,16,362/­ deposited by the petitioner in this Court, on 24.10.2017, in compliance of Section 19 of MSME Act, is to be restored to the petitioner? 3. In respect of the first question identified in the aforesaid paragraph, the Ld. Advocate for the petitioner had drawn reference to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Silpi Industries etc. v Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Anr., (2021) SCC OnLine SC 439, wherein it has been held that in Arbtn No.113/17 M/s. Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd. v M/s. Creative Entrepreneurs Page No.2 of 10 order to avail the benefit of the provisions of MSME Act, the seller should be registered under the provisions of the said Act, on the date of entering into the contract with the buyer. In this case, it is a matter of record that the respondent (seller) had entered into the contract with the petitioner (buyer) vide agreement dated 23.06.2010 read with purchase order dated 01.07.2010 as well as amended purchase order dated 20.10.2010 and that till 20.10.2010, the respondent (seller) was not registered under the provisions of MSME Act. Therefore, the first question identified in the aforesaid paragraph is answered/adjudicated in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. It is held that in respect of the contract between the parties, the respondent had no basis to invoke the dispute resolution/beneficial provisions of MSME Act; that as a result, Sh. Jayant K. Mehta, Ld. Sole Arbitrator, had no jurisdiction to conduct the arbitration proceedings between the parties and that the arbitration proceedings between the parties, should have happened, as per the terms of clause 21 of the purchase order dated 01.07.2010 (repeated in amended purchase order dated 20.10.2010). 1 4. In respect of the second question identified in paragraph 2 of this