Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The application is at the behest of the writ petitioner seeking a direction upon the respondents including the sole Arbitrator not to proceed with arbitration proceeding being Claim Application No.806 of 2018 initiated under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.
(2.) Learned senior Advocate appearing for the applicant / writ petitioner submits that, the private respondents attempted to have an arbitrator appointed at least on 4 occasions by applying under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He submits that, the last attempt to have an arbitrator appointed made by the private respondents, was by way of AP No.247 of 2019 before this Hon'ble Court. The same was adjourned by the order dated August 13, 2019. He relies upon Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Article 228 of the Constitution of India and submits that, when, a question of law is pending for consideration before the Constitutional Court, then, the arbitrator ought not to adjudicate upon the disputes. Consequently, he submits that, the arbitration proceeding should be stayed till disposal of the writ petition. Moreover, he submits that, there is an issue of territorial jurisdiction. The private respondent approached the Tribunal at Haryana under the Act of 2006 for the purpose of adjudication of the claim.
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the private respondent submits that, the claim made in the arbitration proceeding under the Act of 2006 is limited to the principal claim. The private respondent has claims other than the principal amount such as, claim on account of liquidated damages. Such claims are the subject matter of the proceedings under Section 11 of the Act of 1996. Such claims are not being agitated under the Act of 2006. He submits that, the applicant herein was afforded sufficient opportunities by the Council under the Act of 2006 to contest the claim of the private respondent. The applicant did not avail of such opportunities. He relies upon (National Projects Construction Corporation Limited and Anr. - Versus - West Bengal State Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Ors., 2017 3 CalLJ 253) in support of his contentions that, the private respondent can approach the Council under the Act of 2006 in the facts of the present case.;