Section 18(4) MSMED Act – Supervisory Arbitral Jurisdiction of the High Court
judgment dated 24.2.2026 of the High Court of Delhi Geniemode Global Pvt Ltd Vs. Priyanka Implex Private Limited and others
In the section 39(2) petition of the AA, the order dated 18.1.2025 of the empaneled expert to facilitate arbitral proceedings, directing the petitioner to pay the entire fee of Expert to the tune of Rs.18,04,057/- to adjudicate the counter claim of the petitioner.
On 15.4.2024, the petitioner issued demand notice under section 8 of IBC to the respondent no.1. Thereafter, the petitioner filed section 9 IBC application and the NCLT issued the notice.
On 29.5.2024, the respondent no.1 filed section 18 MSMED Act reference at Panchkula.
On 19.12.2024, the Multi-Member Arbitral Tribunal appointed a former Judge of PH High Court as an Expert to facilitate arbitral proceedings.
The petitioner filed the counter claim.
By the order dated 18.1.2025, the Expert directed the petitioner to pay the Expert’s fees of Rs.1804,057/-
This was challenged in the High Court of Delhi. However, an objection was taken that since the arbitral proceedings were conducted at Faridabad, Haryana, the seat of arbitration is in Harayana and determines the exclusive supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral process.
In this case, Clauses 7 and 12 of the Service Agreement provided that the parties may bring law in accordance with laws of India applicable in Delhi and the Delhi Courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction.
Thereafter, Clause 12 of the subsequent Affiliate Agreement provided the exclusive jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. However, clause 13 of the said Agreement provided governing law and jurisdiction that Haryana shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of any matter.
However, the respondent no.1 supplier the Council at Panchkula. The proceedings, hearings and orders were held and passed at Faridabad in Haryana.
