JUDGMENT : A.A. SAYED, J. 1. The petitioner-Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. has filed this Application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 2. Pursuant to a tender for supply of 11 KV-400 Amp. G.O. switches, issued by the petitioner, the respondent-M/s Suri Electricals and Ceramics was declared as a successful bidder and alloted the work. An Agreement dated 07.11.2020, was entered into between the petitioner and respondent. 3. Clause 8.1 of the Agreement provides for reference of the disputes to the sole arbitration of the Managing Director of Respondent No. 1-Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. Shimla or his nominee. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that it has served Notice dated 3.5.2021 to the respondent nominating the Chief Engineer Project-cum-Arbitrator as an Arbitrator and requested the respondent to accord its consent. However, the respondent failed to accord its consent to the appointment of Arbitrator on the plea that it has already approached the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Council, Agra (U.P.) (hereinafter referred to as “the Council”). It is pointed out that the petitioner has received notice/intimation dated 18.4.2021 from the Council that it (the Council) had received an Application bearing Application No. UDYAM-UP-18-0000950/S/00001 filed by the respondent against the petitioner making a reference of dispute to the Council under the provisions of Section 18 (1) of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MSMED Act, 2006’) in respect of its claim of an amount of Rs. 1,08,11,691/-. By this notice/intimation, the Council pointed out that it is empowered to conciliate and settle the disputes. The Council advised the petitioner to pay the due amount to the respondent within 15 days of the receipt of the notice/intimation, failing which, a case would be registered by the Council. The said notice/intimation of the Council was replied to by the petitioner vide letter dated 4.5.2021, inter-alia stating that the material delivered by the respondent was not as per the technical specifications under the Agreement and therefore, the payments against the purchase order could not be made to the respondent and delivery of the material could not be accepted till completion of the contract obligations. It was further stated by the petitioner in the reply that the Application is premature and not maintainable under the MSMED Act, 2006 as its transaction was not complete and that the claim raised by the respondent was required to be rejected. It was further pointed out that steps have been taken by the petitioner to appoint an Arbitrator and therefore, the proceeding before the Council be deferred. 5. In the above backdrop, the petitioner has filed the present Application for appointment of an independent and impartial Arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Act to adjudicate its claim of an of Rs. 76,73,589/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment dated 14.8.1999 of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Porwal Sales vs. Flame Control Industries in Arbitration Petition No. 77/17 in support of the case of the petitioner and contends that in the said case also, an Arbitrator was appointed by the learned Single Judge notwithstanding the contention of the respondent that the provisions of MSMED Act, 2006 were applicable. 6. The case of the respondent, on the other hand, is that it is an admitted position that the respondent is a MSME Enterprise as per the definition under the MSMED Act, 2006. It is contended that the jurisdiction of the Council has already been invoked ‘prior’ in time and therefore, the provisions of the MSMED Act, 2006 would prevail. It is further contended that the present Application seeking appointment of an Arbitrator is filed ‘subsequent’ to the filing of the reference to the Council and receipt of the notice/intimation by the petitioner. It is pointed out that Section 24 of the MSMED Act, 2006 has an overriding effect over other Statutes and the Agreement between the parties. Thus, the MSMED Act, 2006 being a special statute will have an overriding effect vis-a-vis the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which is a general Act. It is therefore, contended that the present Application is not competent and not maintainable. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Silpi Industries vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, 2021 SCC Online SC 439 (ii) Secur Industries Ltd. vs. Godrej and Boyce MFG. Co. Ltd. 2004 SCC Online SC 268 (iii) Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. vs. R.N. Metals and Another, 2020 SCC Online Bom. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Silpi Industries vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, 2021 SCC Online SC 439 (ii) Secur Industries Ltd. vs. Godrej and Boyce MFG. Co. Ltd. 2004 SCC Online SC 268 (iii) Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. vs. R.N. Metals and Another, 2020 SCC Online Bom. 6166 (iv) Porwal Sales vs. Flame Control Industries 2019 SCC Online Bom. 1628 (v) Shah vs. Urmi Trenchless Technology Pvt. Ltd. 2019 SCC Online Bom. 340 (vi) Paper and Board Convertors vs. U.P. State Micro and Small Enterprises, 2014 SCC Online All. 5825 (vii) Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. vs. Relemac Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Others, MANU/HP/0884/2021 (viii) Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. vs. Himachal Pradesh Micro and Small Facilitation Council, Service and Others, MANU/HP/0058/2022 (ix) Rampur Distillery and Chemical Co. vs. State of H.P and Others, MANU/UP/0023/2003 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. From the averments made in the petition, it is seen that the entire case of the petitioner is essentially based on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Porwal Sales (supra). 9. It is not in dispute that the respondent is registered under the provisions of MSMED Act, 2006. It is also not in dispute that the present petition seeking appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Act has been filed “after” the respondent has made a reference to the Council. It would be apposite to extract Clause 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006. It reads as under: “18. Reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any party to a dispute may, with regard to any amount due under section 17, make a reference to the 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 (26 of 1996) shall apply to such a dispute as if the conciliation was initiated under Part III of that Act. (3) Where the conciliation initiated under sub-section (2) is not successful and stands terminated without any settlement between the parties, the Council shall either itself take up the dispute for arbitration or refer to it any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services for such arbitration and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall then apply to the dispute as if the arbitration was in pursuance of an arbitration agreement referred to in sub-section (1) of section 7 of that Act. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council or the centre providing alternate dispute resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as an Arbitrator or Conciliator under this section in a dispute between the supplier located within its jurisdiction and a buyer located anywhere in India. (5) Every reference made under this section shall be decided within a period of ninety days from the date of making such a reference.” 10. The only issue arising for determination is whether the petitioner can invoke Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, once the respondent had made a reference under Section 18 (1) of the MSMED Act, 2006 to the Council. 11. In Silpi Industries (supra), the Supreme Court has observed as under: “23. The obligations of the buyer to make payment and award of interest at three times of the bank rate notified by Reserve Bank in the event of delay by the buyer and the mechanism for recovery and reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and further remedies under the 2006 Act for the party aggrieved by the awards, are covered by Chapter V of the 2006 Act. The provisions of Section 15 to 23 of the 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. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a general law whereas the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 is a special beneficial legislation which is intended to benefit micro, small and medium enterprises covered by the said Act. The Act of 2006 contemplates a statutory arbitration when conciliation fails. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a general law whereas the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 is a special beneficial legislation which is intended to benefit micro, small and medium enterprises covered by the said Act. The Act of 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. There are fundamental differences in the settlement mechanism under the 2006 Act and the 1996 Act. The first difference is, the Council constituted under the 2006 Act to undertake mandatory conciliation before the arbitration which is not so under the 1996 Act. Secondly, in the event of failure of conciliation under the 2006 Act, the Council or the centre or institution is identified by it for arbitration. The 1996 Act allows resolution of disputes by agreed forum. The third difference is that, in the event of award in favour of seller and if the same is to be challenged, there is a condition for pre-deposit of 75% of the amount awarded. Such is not the case in the 1996 Act. When such beneficial provisions are there in the special enactment, such benefits cannot be denied on the ground that counterclaim is not maintainable before the Council. In any case, whenever buyer wish to avoid the jurisdiction of the Council, the buyer can do on the spacious plea of counterclaim, without responding to the claims of the seller. When the provisions of Sections 15 to 23 are given overriding effect under Section 24 of the Act and further the 2006 Act is a beneficial legislation, we are of the view that even the buyer, if any claim is there, can very well subject to the jurisdiction before the Council and make its claim/counter claim as otherwise it will defeat the very objects of the Act which is a beneficial legislation to micro, small and medium enterprises. Even in cases where there is no agreement for resolution of disputes by way of arbitration, if the seller is a party covered by Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, if such party approaches the Council for resolution of dispute, other party may approach the civil court or any other forum making claims on the same issue. If two parallel proceedings are allowed, it may result in conflicting findings. At this stage, it is relevant to notice the judgment of this Court in the case of Edukanti Kistamma (Dead) through LRs. vs. S. Venkatareddy (Dead) through LRs. and Others, 2010 1 SCC 756 where this Court has held that a special Statute would be preferred over general one where it is beneficial one. It was explained that the purport and object of the Act must be given its full effect by applying the principles of purposive construction. Thus, it is clear that out of the two legislations, the provisions of MSMED Act will prevail, especially when it has overriding provision under Section 24 thereof. Thus, we hold that MSMED Act, being a special Statute, will have an overriding effect vis-a-vis Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is a general Act. Even if there is an agreement between the parties for resolution of disputes by arbitration, if a seller is covered by Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, the seller can certainly approach the competent authority to make its claim. If any agreement between the parties is there, same is to be ignored in view of the statutory obligations and mechanism provided under the 2006 Act. Further, apart from the provision under Section 23(2A) of the 1996 Act, it is to be noticed that if counterclaim is not permitted, buyer can get over the legal obligation of compound interest at 3 times of the bank rate and the “75% pre-deposit” contemplated under Sections 16 and 19 of the MSMED Act.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. In Paper and Board Convertors (supra), the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court [Coram: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. (as His Lordship then was) and Justice Dilip Gupta] in Paras 14 to 17 has held as follows: “14. In Paper and Board Convertors (supra), the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court [Coram: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. (as His Lordship then was) and Justice Dilip Gupta] in Paras 14 to 17 has held as follows: “14. Under sub-section (4) of Section 18, this position is made abundantly clear because it stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Facilitation Council or the Centre providing alternate dispute resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as an arbitrator or Conciliator under this section in a dispute between a supplier located within its jurisdiction and a buyer located anywhere in India. 15. The petitioner invoked the provisions of the 2006 Act by filing a reference to the Facilitation Council on 3 October 2011. There was undoubtedly a dispute between the petitioner and the respondents in regard to the claim of the petitioner arising out of non payment of its bills. The respondents appointed a sole arbitrator on 5 October 2011 after the petitioner had invoked the intervention of the Facilitation Council on 3 October 2011 under Section 18 of the 2006 Act. Once the jurisdiction of the Facilitation Council has been validly invoked, the Council has exclusive jurisdiction to enter upon conciliation in the first instance and after conciliation has ended in failure, to refer the parties to arbitration. The Facilitation Council could either have conducted the arbitration itself or could have referred the parties to a centre or institution providing alternate dispute resolution services. The Facilitation Council was clearly in error in entertaining the objection filed by the respondents and referring the petitioner to the sole arbitrator so designated by the respondents. 16. The non-obstane provision contained in sub-section (1) of Section 18 and again in sub-section (4) of Section 18 operates to ensure that it is a Facilitation Council which has jurisdiction to act as an arbitrator or Conciliator in a dispute between a supplier located within its jurisdiction and a buyer located anywhere in India. The Facilitation Council had only one of the two courses of action open to it: either to conduct an arbitration itself or to refer the parties to a centre or institution providing alternate dispute resolution services stipulated in sub-section (3) of Section 18.” 17. The Facilitation Council had only one of the two courses of action open to it: either to conduct an arbitration itself or to refer the parties to a centre or institution providing alternate dispute resolution services stipulated in sub-section (3) of Section 18.” 17. In this view of the matter, the impugned order of the Facilitation Council directing the parties to a reference before the sole arbitrator appointed by the respondents was manifestly illegal. We would, accordingly, have to allow the petition and set aside the impugned order dated 13 February 2014. We order accordingly.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. Having regard to the enunciation of law by the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, it would have to be held that once the jurisdiction of the Council has been invoked, the Council would have exclusive jurisdiction. It could either conduct the arbitration itself or refer the parties to a centre or institution providing alternate dispute resolution services. 14. In the present case since the respondent had already made reference to the Council under Section 18 (1) of the MSMED Act, 2006, ‘prior’ to the petitioner invoking arbitration under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Council would have exclusive jurisdiction and the present Application for appointment of arbitrator would not be maintainable. The judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Porwal Sales (supra) on which the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner would have no application in the facts of the present case. In that case, the issue before the learned Single Judge was whether the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 11 (6) of the Act is taken away merely because the respondent is a small scale enterprises falling under the MSMED Act, 2006 and no application/reference has been made by the respondent invoking the provisions under Section 18 (1) of the MSMED Act. This question, which was before the learned Single Judge, is set out in Para 2 of the said judgment. In Para 26 of the said judgment, the learned Single Judge has observed thus: “26. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the respondent has so far not raised any claim against the petitioner and the jurisdiction of the Felicitation Council has not been invoked by either the respondent or the petitioner. In Para 26 of the said judgment, the learned Single Judge has observed thus: “26. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the respondent has so far not raised any claim against the petitioner and the jurisdiction of the Felicitation Council has not been invoked by either the respondent or the petitioner. It thus cannot be accepted that the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 18 of MSMED Act are attracted in any manner in the absence of any reference being made to the Facilitation Council. When there are no proceedings before the Facilitation Council, it is difficult to accept the submission as urged on behalf of the respondents that provisions of Section 18 of the MSMED Act are attracted in the facts of the present case.” Thus, in the aforesaid case before the learned Single Judge, there was no application/reference made by the respondent therein invoking the provisions of Section 18 (1) of the MSMED Act, 2006 and it is in these circumstance, the learned Single Judge entertained the petition for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Act. 15. In light of the above, the question in paragraph 10 hereinabove is answered in the negative. It is accordingly held that since in the present case, the respondent has already made reference to the Council under Section 18 (1) of the MSMED Act, the present Application seeking appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Act would not be maintainable. The Application is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.