DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) The petitioner questions the jurisdiction of the West Bengal State Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council in purporting to arbitrate in the disputes between the first petitioner and the third respondent.
(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that, the claim of the third respondent arises out of a transaction of August 1995. The third respondent was paid off by the first petitioner. The third respondent had persisted in making claims against the first petitioner. The claims made by the third respondent are barred by the laws of limitation. In any event, the contract between the first petitioner and the third respondent on the basis of which the third respondent has made its claims, contains an arbitration clause. The first petitioner had appointed an arbitrator in terms of such arbitration clause. In view of the arbitrator being appointed in terms of the arbitration agreement to arbitrate on the disputes between the first petitioner and the third respondent, the West Bengal State Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council has no jurisdiction over such disputes. He relies upon All India Reporter 2012 Bombay 178 (M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited and Anr. v. Micro, Small Enterprise Facilitation Council , through Joint Director of Industries, Nagpur Region, Nagpur) and an unreported decision of the Bombay High Court rendered in Arbitration Petition No. 56 of 2013 ( M/s. Hindustan Wires Limited v. Mr. R. Suresh and Anr .) and submits that, the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act , 2006 does not negate an existing arbitration agreement between the parties. The Council was wrong in issuing the writing dated March 17, 2016 by which the Council had fixed a date for arbitration. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that, the claim of the third respondent had arisen much prior to the coming into effect of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act , 2006. Moreover, the third respondent was not registered under the Act of 2006 within the time stipulated therein. He further submits that, it is doubtful whether the third respondent comes into the purview of the Act of 2006 at all. He submits that, the Act of 2006 does not have retrospective effect.
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the third respondent submits that, the third respondent was registered as a Small Scale IndustrialUnit with the Council on July 15, 2011. He submits that, the Council is entitled to proceed to arbitrate the disputes between the parties.;