PunjabHaryana High Court M/S Trident Limited vs Anand Talc And Stratite Pvt Ltd on 18 October, 2016 CHANDIGARH Arbitration Case No. 115 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.10.2016 M/s Trident Limited through Lalit Kakkar ..Petitioner versus Anand Tale & Steatite Pvt. Ltd. Udaipur (Rajasthan) ..Respondent Present : Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. **** S.J.VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE This is a petition under section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences between the parties. 2. Two questions of law arise in this case. The first is whether an arbitration agreement must be signed by the parties. I have held that while an arbitration agreement must be in writing it is not necessary for it to be signed by the parties thereto. The second is whether in view of the provisions of Micro Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, an arbitration agreement which is otherwise governed by the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is of no effect. I find myself bound by a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in case Welspun Corp. Ltd. v. The Micro and Small Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, Punjab and others 2013(5) RCR(Civil) 150, where it is interalia held that even a buyer of goods from a micro enterprise can refer its claims to arbitration against a 1 of 16 ::: Downloaded on 29102016 14:56:11 ::: Arbitration Case No 115 of 2016 2 micro enterprise. The learned Single Judge also rejected the contention that an arbitration agreement between the parties which is governed by the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot override the provisions relating to arbitration under the Micro Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. There are conflicting judgments of other High Court on this point. Although an appeal against this judgment has been admitted it has not been expedited and the appeal is likely to take some time. In view thereof and considering the importance of the issue involved instead of adjourning this petition sinedie to await the decision in the appeal, I thought it better to follow the judgment leaving the petitioner to its remedy of challenging this order and judgment. 3. By an email dated 29.01.2014 the petitioner placed a purchase order for supply of 'soap stone powder' on the respondent. The email stated that the purchase order would be as per the terms and conditions contained in the attachment to the email and that the same had been agreed upon. The petitioner sought the respondent's confirmation/acceptance of the order via reply email. The petitioner stated that any discrepancy regarding the acceptance of the purchase order with the terms and conditions was to be intimated within 24 hours of the receipt of the purchase order. It further stated that the attached order would be assumed as accepted. One of the clauses of the terms and conditions reads as under: "Any dispute, difference or question arising out of, in relation to or incidental to this Purchase order shall be referred for arbitration to be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitration shall be conducted at Barnala, Punjab, India by 3 (three) Arbitrators, one arbitrator to be appointed by each party and the third being appointed by the mutual consent of the two arbitrators 2 of 16 ::: Downloaded on 29102016 14:56:12 ::: Arbitration Case No 115 of 2016 3 appointed by the parties. This purchase order shall be governed by the law of India and any dispute, difference or claim which may arise between the parties in connection with the performance of this Purchase order of the rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall be only under the jurisdiction of the law Courts of the city of Barnala/Ludhiana, Punjab, India." 4. Pursuant to the purchase order, the respondent commenced supply of the goods from time to time and forwarded