Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

designated nominee as Arbitrator in an arbitration under Section 18 of the MSME Act;
III. Whether the mandate of the Council or its nominee under Section 18(3) of the MSME Act terminates after the expiry of ninety days from the date of making the reference. I. Whether Section 18 of the MSME Act stands amended by Section 62 of the 2023 Act.

24. Taking first thing first, this Court takes judicial notice of Notification No. S.O.4384(E) dated October 9, 2023 issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice, which has also been referred to by the Law Minister in Parliament, in his answer to the query regarding the steps being taken to implement the 2023 Act. The said Notification declares several provisions of the 2023 Act to come into force from October 9, 2023. However, Section 62 of the 2023 Act is conspicuous by its absence from the said array of Sections. As such, Section 62 has not yet been notified and thus, is not yet implemented, which signifies that the amendments under the said Section, as contemplated in the Seventh Schedule of the 2023 Act, have not yet come into force.

25. Thus, this question is answered in the negative. Section 18 of the MSME Act stands in its original form, unamended by the 2023 Act as yet.

II. Whether the Court having jurisdiction over an arbitral proceeding under the MSME Act has the authority/jurisdiction to substitute the Council or its designated nominee as Arbitrator in an arbitration under Section 18 of the MSME Act.

27. Sub-section (4) of Section 18 contains a separate non obstante clause and provides that the Council or its nominee shall have jurisdiction to act as an Arbitrator or Conciliator under the said Section in a dispute between the supplier located within its jurisdiction and a buyer located anywhere in India. Therefore, there is no doubt that exclusive jurisdiction to conduct the arbitration under the MSME Act is conferred on the Council or its nominee and no other authority. Thus, it would be acting de hors the specific provisions of the MSME Act if the Council or its nominee is substituted as Arbitrator and a third entity is so appointed to conduct the arbitral proceeding under the MSME Act.

37. Conspicuously, there is no such sanction for non-completion of the arbitral proceeding within the stipulated period of 90 days in Section 18(5) of the MSME Act or elsewhere in the said Act. Hence, on a mere comparison of the two provisions, the timelines in both cases being hedged by the expression "shall", shows that whereas Section 29A needed a further provision to provide that in case of non-completion within the timeline the mandate shall terminate, the said additional provision is intentionally left out in Section 18 of the MSME Act. Thus, as opposed to Section 29A (3) of the 1996 Act, Section 18 (5)of the MSME Act does not carry any sanction or adverse consequence for non-adherence to such outer time-limit. This is an additional indicator that the timeline stipulated in Section 18(5) is not mandatory but directory.