RAJESH DAYAL KHARE, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 12.7.2016 passed by the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in Arbitration Case No.19 of 2005 and the partial award dated 14.3.2015 passed by the respondent No.3 in Arbitration Case No.53 of 2014.
(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was heard and the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar passed the order impugned dated 12.7.2016, whereby it has been held that the respondent No.3 did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter in as much as Section 18 of The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 2006') had conferred the jurisdiction to the Council to arbitrate the dispute which was situated beyond his jurisdiction and it was further held that all proceedings including the Venue and entire procedure of arbitration contemplated in Contract would stand obliterated by Section 18(4) of the Act 2006. It is next contended that there was a contract for supplying goods between petitioner and respondent No. 4 and copy of supply order is annexed as annexure-1 to the writ petition of which Clause 13 relates to dispute resolution, which provides that if dispute is not resolved amicably, it shall be decided by reference to arbitration by three arbitrators; each party shall appoint one arbitrator and the third arbitration shall be appointed in accordance with the provision of Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.;