P.S. Techcom Pvt. Ltd., (Division Vecaun Projects) 2C, 728 I Block, HRBR Layout, Bangalore  560 043. .. Respondent * * * Prayer : Petition filed under Section 11(6)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to appoint a Sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause 10 of AnnexureI to the Purchase Order dated 16.06.2011, to adjudicate upon the differences and disputes between the parties under the Purchase Order dated 16.06.2011. * * * For Petitioner : Mr.Rahul Balaji For Respondent : Mr.Navkesh Batra for M/s.Adithya Reddy O R D E R This Original Petition is seeking for appointment of a sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause 10 of Annexure I to the Purchase Order dated 16.06.2007 to adjudicate upon the differences and disputes between the parties under the said Purchase Order (PO). 2. Before proceeding to the question of appointment of Arbitrator, as prayed for, the question that arises for consideration is : when the respondent being a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise registered with the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Council, whether the agreement contrary to the statutory provisions is prohibited ? 2.1. Secondly, whether a counter claim is maintainable before the the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Council ? 3. The brief facts leading to the differences and disputes between the parties and filing of this petition run thus : 3.1. The petitioner is a public listed company in engineering and developed good reputation and goodwill in its field of operation with several high profile projects in its name. One such project is the 2 X 500 MW Marwa Thermal Power Plant for the Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited (CSPGCL). 3.2. In execution of the above project, the petitioner entered into a contract for Design, Procurement, Manufacture and Supply of Fire Detection and Protection Equipments including Accessories with the respondent vide the Purchase Order dated 16.06.2011 for a total contract price of Rs.9.50 Crores. These items were procured as a requirement for setting up a power plant by the petitioner for their employer. 3.3. It is stated that the date for erection and commissioning of the equipments, as per the terms of the contract, though fixed as 07.04.2012, was extended at the behest of the respondent from time to time. However, the respondent defaulted in payments and there was a delay in supply, which was admitted by the respondent in their email dated 21.12.2012. Though the respondent was expected to supply the materials required for the project in a continuous and time bound manner, the supply was made only on piecemeal basis resulting in the petitioner receiving a cautionary email from its employer. It is stated that at one stage, the respondent was unable to complete the supply of balance materials and the petitioner was forced to engage another contractor to complete the same. 3.4. The petitioner addressed a letter dated 26.06.2015 bringing to the notice of the respondent that the contractual default on its part and raised a claim of Rs.93.81 lakh. The respondent also raised a claim of Rs.2,44,54,139/ on the petitioner. 3.5. While so, the respondent had proceeded to file a claim before the Micro, Small Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, Karnataka (MSME Council) making its claims. Admittedly, the petitioner is also denying the same on factual and legal grounds. It is pointed out that there is an arbitration clause in the PO providing resolution of disputes. Therefore, the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner before the MSME Council was rejected. It was challenged before the Karnataka High Court in W.P.No.42414 of 2016 and the Karnataka High Court granted an interim order directing the MSME Council to defer the passing of the final orders. 3.6. There was yet another writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.55303 of 2017 before the Karnataka High Court challenging the order rejecting the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner, which is said to be pending. 3.7. It is in the above factual background, the present Original Petition is filed for seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is only a 'buyer', as defined under Section 2(d) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act). Section 2(n) of the said Act defines 'supplier'