RICHA GLOBAL EXPORTS PVT. LTD. v. DELHI INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE & ORS.

Delhi High Court · 28 Apr 2026 · 2026:DHC:4179

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

W.P.(C) 14435/2024

2026:DHC:4179

civil petition_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that the Facilitation Council has jurisdiction to entertain disputes under the MSMED Act regardless of whether the MSME was registered at the time of contract or invoice issuance, dismissing the petition challenging the referral to arbitration.

Full Text

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 14435/2024 and CM APPL 60478/2024
Date of Decision: 28.04.2026 IN THE MATTER OF:
RICHA GLOBAL EXPORTS PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. T.S. Thakraon, Advocate.

VERSUS

DELHI INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE & ORS. .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Rupam Jha, Advocate for R-1.
Ms. Rachita Garg, Advocate for GNCTD.
Mr. U. C. Gupta, Mr. Prashant Gupta, Mrs. Simran Chopra and Mr. Anup Singh Advocates for R-3.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

JUDGMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

(ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 30.05.2022 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the Micro & Small Enterprise Facilitation Council (“Council”), whereby the petitioner‟s dispute against respondent no. 3, had been referred for adjudication to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre („DIAC‟) under Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSMED, Act”).

KUMAR KAURAV

2. The sole ground to challenge the Impugned Order is that the alleged invoices which form the basis of the present dispute pertain to the year 2017, which is prior to the date on which respondent no. 3 registered itself as an MSME.

3. The issue raised in this petition is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in the case of NBCC (India) Ltd. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.[1] in paragraph no.5 has framed the following question:-

“5. Issue for our consideration: The question of law for our consideration is whether an MSME cannot make a reference to the Facilitation Council for dispute resolution under Section 18 of the Act if it is not registered under Section 8 of the Act before the execution of the contract with the buyer.”

4. The aforesaid question has been answered in paragraph no.15 thereof, which reads as under:

“15. Having considered the definition of the expression „supplier‟, and also having considered the classification of enterprises into micro, small and medium with respect to each of which there is a separate legal regime to be suggested by the Advisory Committee and notified by the Central and State Governments, and in view of the discretion specifically vested with the micro and small enterprises for filing a memorandum under Section 8 of the Act, the submission that the Facilitation Council cannot entertain a reference under Section 18 if the enterprise is not registered under Section 8 must be rejected.”

5. It is clear that the fact of an MSME being unregistered, at the time the contract was entered into, or when the alleged invoices were issued, is immaterial to the jurisdiction and powers exercisable by the Council under Section 18 of the MSMED Act. Same was the view taken by this Court in Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. v. KGTS Engineering India Pvt. Ltd.,[2] NTPC 2025 INSC 54. W.P.(C)13095/2023; order dated 13.01.2026. Ltd. v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Ors.,[3] Bharatiya Rail Bijlee Company Ltd. v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Ors.,[4] Environment Planning and Coordination Organization Virology v. M/s Suresh Goel and Associates and Ors.,[5] Lalit Narayan Mithila University v. Delhi International Arbitration Centre and Ors.,[6] Sugam Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Ors.,[7] Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s Vijay Bansal,[8] Sadbhav Infrastructure Project Ltd. v. VCS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.,[9] MNV Industries Ltd. v. Chairman Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Anr.,10 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s Vijay Bansal.11 Importantly, the order of this Court in M/s Vijay Bansal (supra) was affirmed by the Division Bench in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s Vijay Bansal.12

6. In light of the above, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the Impugned Order, the petition is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE APRIL 28, 2026 Aks/ksr W.P.(C) 5195/2021; order dated 22.01.2026. W.P.(C) 8669/2021; order dated 22.01.2026. W.P.(C) 12469/2024; order dated 11.02.2026 W.P.(C) 2249/2026; order dated 17.02.2026 W.P.(C) 2603/2026; order dated 25.02.2026 W.P.(C) 12308/2023; order dated 25.02.2026 W.P.(C) 13030/2023; order dated 18.03.2026 W.P.(C) 10895/2024; order dated 21.04.2026 W.P.(C) 12308/2023; order dated 25.02.2026. L.P.A 267/2026; order dated 15.04.2026.

RICHA GLOBAL EXPORTS PVT. LTD. v. DELHI INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE & ORS.

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation