Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the parties have filed their written arguments.
(2.) A dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 regarding payment for some goods supplied by the respondent no. 2 to the petitioner. From the record of the case it appears that the respondent no. 1 that is the U.P. State Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, U.P. Kanpur entertained the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 and ultimately an award was drawn on 11.5.2015 which was signed on 21.6.2015 and as per the award the respondent no. 2, (the petitioner before the U.P. State Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Facilitation Council) was entitled to get an amount of Rs. 19,86,951/- alongwith interest. The amount payable to the respondent no. 2 on the date of the award was Rs. 36,04,777/-. It was further provided that interest would be leviable till the entire payment was made. When this amount, it appears, was not being paid by the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 filed an application for executing the award before the District Judge, Faridabad. This application was filed under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner who was the Judgement Debtor had appeared before the executing court and the execution proceedings had started. This writ petition, thereafter, during the continuation of the execution proceedings, was filed saying that as only the provisions of Sections 65 to 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 had been made applicable by Section 18 (2) of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, the provisions of Section 36 were not applicable and the Execution Case was not maintainable. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner readout Section 18 (2) of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, the same is being reproduced here as under:- "18. Reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council:-(2) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Council shall either itself conduct conciliation in the matter or seek the assistance of any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services by making a reference to such an institution or centre, for conducting conciliation and the provisions of sections 65 to 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, shall apply to such a dispute as if the conciliation was initiated under Part III of that Act "
(3.) Further learned counsel for the petitioner stated that even if the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 was applicable then as per Section 42 of that Act the Court which had jurisdiction over the Arbitration proceedings alone would have the jurisdiction to deal with the execution etc. of the award.;