High Court Holds No Territorial Jurisdiction in Section 34 Challenge to MSMED Facilitation Council Award Due to Statutory Arbitration in Pune. Contractual Arbitration Clause for Mumbai Seat Did Not Apply as Proceedings Were Conducted Under Section 18 of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.

Case Note & Summary

This matter involved a preliminary objection to territorial jurisdiction raised by SVS Aqua Technologies LLP in petitions filed by GEA Westfalia Separator India Private Limited under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitions impugned arbitral awards dated November 18, 2024 passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Pune. The underlying dispute emanated from a Manufacturing and Supply Agreement dated November 13, 2019, under which GEA was directed to pay awarded sums with interest to SVS Aqua. The agreement contained Clause 23, providing that disputes would be resolved by arbitration in Mumbai in accordance with the ICADR Arbitration Rules, 1996, before a three-member tribunal. However, the arbitration that led to the awards was not conducted under that clause; it was conducted by the Facilitation Council in Pune under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 after conciliation failed. GEA contended that Bombay High Court had jurisdiction because Clause 23 reflected the parties' intention to have Mumbai as the seat of arbitration, and arbitration in Pune was only a convenient venue. It argued that the parties must be held to have agreed to exclusive jurisdiction of Mumbai courts. SVS Aqua argued that Section 18 of the MSMED Act created a statutory arbitration agreement, the proceedings were held in Pune as a matter of statutory territorial jurisdiction, and Section 24 of the MSMED Act gave overriding effect to Sections 15 to 23, thereby overriding the Arbitration Act and the contractual arbitration clause. Therefore, only the Civil Courts in Pune could entertain a Section 34 challenge. The court examined Clause 23 and noted that it did not use the terms 'seat' or 'venue'; it simply provided for arbitration in Mumbai. More importantly, the court found that no arbitration proceedings were ever conducted pursuant to that clause. The arbitration that resulted in the impugned awards was conducted by the Facilitation Council in Pune under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, which provides for a statutorily created arbitration agreement once conciliation fails. The court highlighted that under Section 18(3), the provisions of the Arbitration Act apply as if the arbitration was pursuant to an agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act. The Facilitation Council exercised statutory arbitral jurisdiction, not the contractual arbitral mechanism. The court also noted that the agreement did not contain any clause recording exclusive or non-exclusive jurisdiction of any court. The court held that Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act defines 'Court' for Section 34 challenges, and that definition must be applied to the subject matter of the arbitration. Since the statutory arbitration occurred before the Facilitation Council in Pune, and the agreement lacked a jurisdiction clause, the Bombay High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The court concluded that the reference to the contractual arbitration clause was a 'red herring' because the proceedings were conducted under MSMED Act in Pune by the Facilitation Council, not under ICADR rules in Mumbai by a three-member tribunal. Accordingly, the preliminary issue was answered in favour of SVS Aqua, and the court held that the Section 34 petitions were not maintainable before the Bombay High Court; the proper forum was the Civil Courts in Pune.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The Bombay High Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Section 34 petitions because the arbitration was a statutory arbitration under Section 18 of the MSMED Act conducted at the Facilitation Council in Pune; the contractual arbitration clause was not acted upon and did not fix Mumbai as the seat; consequently, the Court answered the preliminary issue in favour of SVS Aqua and held that the petitions must be filed before the Civil Courts in Pune.

Law Points