JUDGMENT : 1. By way of these Objections, filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the Objector (Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited) has assailed the award dated 20.01.2020, passed in case No. 1194 of 2019, by the Sole Arbitrator, Sh. S.P. Singh, District & Sessions Judge, (Retired). 2. When this petition was taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection has been raised by respondent No.1 with regard to maintainability of these Objections, on the ground that as respondent No.1 had approached the Haryana Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council for redresssal of the grievance of non-payment of their dues from the present petitioner and it was on account of these proceedings that the matter stood referred to the Arbitrator by the said Council, i.e. Sole Arbitrator, Sh. S.P. Singh, Former District & Sessions Judge, who conducted the arbitration proceedings at District Karnal in Haryana, therefore, the Objections, which have been filed against the award so passed are not maintainable as the Court which can be approached by the present petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 has to be the Principle Court of Civil jurisdiction within the State of Haryana. 3. Mr. Atul Jhigan, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has drawn the attention of this Court to the documents appended with this petition, including the copy of the award passed by learned Arbitrator and on the strength of these documents, submitted that the petitioner has wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for preferring these Objections as when the Arbitrator stood appointed in a Reference which was invoked under Section 83 of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, pursuant to an order passed in this regard by the Haryana Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, then the award passed by the learned Arbitrator could not be challenged in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 4. Mr. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the Objector, justifying the filing of present petition has submitted that as the work to be executed in terms of the agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was to be executed within the State of Himachal Pradesh, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to decide these Objections and there is no infirmity in the Act of the Objector in filing the present Objections before this Court. He has further submitted that in terms of the Arbitration clause which existed in the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent, all disputes arising between the petitioner and respondent No.1 were referable to sole arbitration of Managing Director, MD, HPSEB and were to be subject to the jurisdiction of Shimla Court only. Therefore, as per him the Objections are maintainable. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents appended with the petition including the impugned award. 6. The Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act 2006 has been enacted to provide for facilitating the promotion and development and enhancing the competitiveness of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises and for matter selected therewith or incidental therewith. 7. Chapter 5 of the 2006 Act deals with delayed payment to Micro and Small Enterprises. The liability of the buyer to make payment in the event of delay as well as the mechanism for recovery of the same and Reference of the dispute to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council is duly provided in Chapter 5 of 2006 Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s Silpi Industries Etc and others vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation has been pleased to hold that the provisions of Section 15 to 23 of the 2006 Act, are given overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. From the statement of Objects and Reasons also it is clear that it is a beneficial legislation to the small, medium and micro sector. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is a general law whereas the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 contemplates a statutory arbitration when conciliation fails. A party which is covered by the provisions of 2006 Act allows a party to apply to the Council constituted under the Act to first conciliate and then arbitrate on the dispute between it and other parties. Thus, it is apparently clear that once the subject matter referred to the Council under the provision of the 2006 Act, then it was the mechanism provided therein which was to govern the adjudication of the dispute, dehorse the fact that there was an agreement entered into between the parties which envisaged an arbitration clause. Thus, it is apparently clear that once the subject matter referred to the Council under the provision of the 2006 Act, then it was the mechanism provided therein which was to govern the adjudication of the dispute, dehorse the fact that there was an agreement entered into between the parties which envisaged an arbitration clause. In other words as the provision of the 2006 Act have overriding effect upon other laws including the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, therefore, the mechanism of Conciliation and Arbitration provided therein, overrides any other clause entered into between the parties for the settlement of the disputes once the disputes stands referred to the Council. 9. Coming to the facts of this case, the Council which was approached by respondent No.1 was the Haryana Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council which referred the matter for adjudication of the dispute between the parties to the Arbitrator vide order dated 15.11.2019 after the conciliation failed. It is in compliance to the said Reference made by the Haryana Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council that the arbitration proceedings were undertaken by the learned Arbitrator and award dated 20.1.2020 was passed. Incidentally the sole Arbitrator happens to be a Former District & Sessions Judge of the State of Haryana and the seat of Arbitrator was also at Karnal, Haryana. 10. In these peculiar facts, this Court is of the considered view that the award could have been assailed by the present petitioner before a Court, as is envisaged under Section 2(e) of the 1996 Act, as it stands amended from time to time, in the State of Haryana and not this Court as after the Reference of the dispute to the Haryana Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, no cause of action accrued within the State of Himachal Pradesh as admittedly the arbitration proceedings were also conducted in the State of Haryana. In this view of the matter the preliminary Objections of respondent No.1 are upheld and it is ordered that the present Objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are not maintainable before this Court. 11. Accordingly, these Objections are ordered to be returned to the Objector in original for their presentation before the appropriate Court of law. 11. Accordingly, these Objections are ordered to be returned to the Objector in original for their presentation before the appropriate Court of law. Photocopy thereof be retained for the purpose of record and amount be released in the bank account of the Objector details whereof be shall be provided by the learned counsel for the Objector within a period of one week.