Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, has the Supreme Court settled whether a buyer can independently invoke arbitration against an MSME seller under the 1996 Act?
Coram: Sanjay Kumar; Sanjeev Sachdeva
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 — MSME arbitration recourse — Question left open — Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — MSMED Act, 2006 — MSME's independent recourse to arbitration — Question left open — Held: Whether a buyer can independently invoke arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against an MSME seller, apart from the MSMED Act, 2006 route, was raised but left open for an appropriate future case; the appeal was disposed of by consent, referring the parties to arbitration through the Delhi International Arbitration Centre. (¶2, 6)
Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, has the Supreme Court settled whether a buyer can independently invoke arbitration against an MSME seller under the 1996 Act?
No — the question was raised in this appeal but expressly left open, since the parties agreed instead to resolve their dispute by arbitration through the Delhi International Arbitration Centre; it remains available for consideration in an appropriate future case.
What did the Supreme Court finally decide in this appeal?
The appeal was disposed of by consent: the respondent MSME agreed to arbitration through the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with the venue fixed at New Delhi and the appellant directed to approach the Centre within two weeks, while the underlying question of law was left open.
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.
Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Leave granted.
An interesting question of law was sought to be raised by way of this appeal, that is, whether a buyer of goods or services from a micro or small enterprise (MSME), governed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, can seek to initiate arbitration proceedings in respect of its claim against such MSME by independently taking recourse to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Effective arguments were advanced by Ms. Tanyiya Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant, and she placed reliance on case law in support Deepak Guglani of her weighty contentions. The decisions of the Delhi High Court in Uniseven Engineering and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation (MSEF) Council, District (South), and another 1 and of the Calcutta High Court in Essar Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Limited vs. Gargi Travels Private Limited2 were placed before us.
While so, on instructions, Mr. Sanjay Bhaseen, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondent MSME, stated that the respondent MSME is agreeable to the appointment of an arbitrator through the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre to resolve the inter se disputes between the parties through the process of arbitration governed by the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He would, however, submit that as the appellant has its registered office at Ahmedabad, Gujarat, and the respondent MSME, being a proprietorship, has its office at Basti in Uttar Pradesh, the venue of the arbitration may be fixed as New Delhi for the convenience of both parties.
Accepting the fair offer made by the learned senior counsel so as to give a quietus to the matter without further ado, the appeal is disposed of requesting the Delhi International Arbitration Centre to appoint a suitable arbitrator to undertake the resolution of the disputes between the appellant, M/s Patel Infrastructure Limited, and the respondent, M/s Aditya Construction under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The venue of the arbitration shall be at New Delhi. The appellant shall approach the Delhi International Arbitration Centre within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The question of law raised in this appeal is, however, left open to be considered in an appropriate case in future. The appeal is disposed of in the aforestated terms. Parties shall bear their own costs. ..............................., J.
SANJAY KUMAR
..............................., J.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
August 5, 2026 New Delhi. 3
Under Order XIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when can a court reject a document that has already been marked as an exhibit at trial?
2026 INSC 813 · Supreme Court of India
Under Article 32 of the Constitution, can the Supreme Court continue to monitor a State's compliance with earlier environmental directions through successive status reports in a suo motu writ petition?
2026 INSC 812 · Supreme Court of India
What test determines whether a prior court order lays down a binding precedent on a point of law, as opposed to merely deciding the case before it?
2026 INSC 810 · Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court decides something every day. Read one a day.
A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.
Start reading freeHeadnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy