Question Description
The primary objective of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, (“MSME Act”) is to facilitate the promotion and development and enhance the competitiveness of micro, small and medium enterprises. The MSME Act contains provisions for dispute resolution which are applicable to disputes involving suppliers. Section 18 of the MSME Act provides that any party with a dispute regarding amount due to a Supplier may make a reference to the MSME Facilitation Council (“Council”) for conciliation. If conciliation is unsuccessful, the Council may either take up the dispute itself for arbitration or refer the parties to an arbitral institution. Section 18(4) further provides that the Council or center providing the alternative dispute resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as an arbitrator or conciliator in a dispute between the Supplier located within its jurisdiction and a buyer located anywhere in India.Section 18 became contentious when multiple cases arose where a party involved in a dispute with a Supplier filed proceedings in court challenging its applicability to their dispute in light of the arbitration agreement entered between the parties. In general, presence of an arbitration agreement would not invalidate arbitration proceedings that have been initiated under the MSME Act, since the MSME Act is a special statute which would override any agreement between the parties. This position was also upheld by the Supreme Court. However, in those cases, the Supplier had initiated proceedings under section 18 of the MSME Act before the Buyer invoked arbitration under the agreement. These cases did not deal with a scenario where the Buyer invoked arbitration under the agreement where there was no reference of a dispute to the Council. For such situations, it has been held that, if the intention of section 18(4) of the MSME Act was to create a legal bar on a party who has a contract with a Supplier under the MSME Act from invoking section 11 of the Arbitration Act, then the legislature would have expressly provided that the MSME Act overrides any arbitration agreement entered under the MSME Act. Section 18(4) would come into play only in cases where a reference was made to the Council under section 18(1). The Court noted the use of the word “may” in section 18(1) and held that in light of the language used, it cannot be said to be mandatory for a Buyer to refer its dispute to the Council under section 18. Since the jurisdiction of the Council had not yet been invoked, there was nothing barring the court from appointing an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties.By making section 18 of the MSME Act directory, Buyers have been given a way out to circumvent the provisions under the MSME Act.Q. Which among the following is true regarding the author’s view with respect to the provision of dispute resolution under the MSME Act? 1. The author is supportive of the inclusion of a dispute resolution provision under the act. 2. The author feels that there exists loophole in the dispute resolution provision. 3. The author is of the opinion that the MSME Act could not ameliorate the competitiveness of the micro, small and medium enterprises.a)Only 2b)2 and 3c)Only 1d)1 and 3Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The primary objective of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, (“MSME Act”) is to facilitate the promotion and development and enhance the competitiveness of micro, small and medium enterprises. The MSME Act contains provisions for dispute resolution which are applicable to disputes involving suppliers. Section 18 of the MSME Act provides that any party with a dispute regarding amount due to a Supplier may make a reference to the MSME Facilitation Council (“Council”) for conciliation. If conciliation is unsuccessful, the Council may either take up the dispute itself for arbitration or refer the parties to an arbitral institution. Section 18(4) further provides that the Council or center providing the alternative dispute resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as an arbitrator or conciliator in a dispute between the Supplier located within its jurisdiction and a buyer located anywhere in India.Section 18 became contentious when multiple cases arose where a party involved in a dispute with a Supplier filed proceedings in court challenging its applicability to their dispute in light of the arbitration agreement entered between the parties. In general, presence of an arbitration agreement would not invalidate arbitration proceedings that have been initiated under the MSME Act, since the MSME Act is a special statute which would override any agreement between the parties. This position was also upheld by the Supreme Court. However, in those cases, the Supplier had initiated proceedings under section 18 of the MSME Act before the Buyer invoked arbitration under the agreement. These cases did not deal with a scenario where the Buyer invoked arbitration under the agreement where there was no reference of a dispute to the Council. For such situations, it has been held that, if the intention of section 18(4) of the MSME Act was to create a legal bar on a party who has a contract with a Supplier under the MSME Act from invoking section 11 of the Arbitration Act, then the legislature would have expressly provided that the MSME Act overrides any arbitration agreement entered under the MSME Act. Section 18(4) would come into play only in cases where a reference was made to the Council under section 18(1). The Court noted the use of the word “may” in section 18(1) and held that in light of the language used, it cannot be said to be mandatory for a Buyer to refer its dispute to the Council under section 18. Since the jurisdiction of the Council had not yet been invoked, there was nothing barring the court from appointing an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties.By making section 18 of the MSME Act directory, Buyers have been given a way out to circumvent the provisions under the MSME Act.Q. Which among the following is true regarding the author’s view with respect to the provision of dispute resolution under the MSME Act? 1. The author is supportive of the inclusion of a dispute resolution provision under the act. 2. The author feels that there exists loophole in the dispute resolution provision. 3. The author is of the opinion that the MSME Act could not ameliorate the competitiveness of the micro, small and medium enterprises.a)Only 2b)2 and 3c)Only 1d)1 and 3Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The primary objective of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, (“MSME Act”) is to facilitate the promotion and development and enhance the competitiveness of micro, small and medium enterprises. The MSME Act contains provisions for dispute resolution which are applicable to disputes involving suppliers. Section 18 of the MSME Act provides that any party with a dispute regarding amount due to a Supplier may make a reference to the MSME Facilitation Council (“Council”) for conciliation. If conciliation is unsuccessful, the Council may either take up the dispute itself for arbitration or refer the parties to an arbitral institution. Section 18(4) further provides that the Council or center providing the alternative dispute resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as an arbitrator or conciliator in a dispute between the Supplier located within its jurisdiction and a buyer located anywhere in India.Section 18 became contentious when multiple cases arose where a party involved in a dispute with a Supplier filed proceedings in court challenging its applicability to their dispute in light of the arbitration agreement entered between the parties. In general, presence of an arbitration agreement would not invalidate arbitration proceedings that have been initiated under the MSME Act, since the MSME Act is a special statute which would override any agreement between the parties. This position was also upheld by the Supreme Court. However, in those cases, the Supplier had initiated proceedings under section 18 of the MSME Act before the Buyer invoked arbitration under the agreement. These cases did not deal with a scenario where the Buyer invoked arbitration under the agreement where there was no reference of a dispute to the Council. For such situations, it has been held that, if the intention of section 18(4) of the MSME Act was to create a legal bar on a party who has a contract with a Supplier under the MSME Act from invoking section 11 of the Arbitration Act, then the legislature would have expressly provided that the MSME Act overrides any arbitration agreement entered under the MSME Act. Section 18(4) would come into play only in cases where a reference was made to the Council under section 18(1). The Court noted the use of the word “may” in section 18(1) and held that in light of the language used, it cannot be said to be mandatory for a Buyer to refer its dispute to the Council under section 18. Since the jurisdiction of the Council had not yet been invoked, there was nothing barring the court from appointing an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties.By making section 18 of the MSME Act directory, Buyers have been given a way out to circumvent the provisions under the MSME Act.Q. Which among the following is true regarding the author’s view with respect to the provision of dispute resolution under the MSME Act? 1. The author is supportive of the inclusion of a dispute resolution provision under the act. 2. The author feels that there exists loophole in the dispute resolution provision. 3. The author is of the opinion that the MSME Act could not ameliorate the competitiveness of the micro, small and medium enterprises.a)Only 2b)2 and 3c)Only 1d)1 and 3Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The primary objective of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, (“MSME Act”) is to facilitate the promotion and development and enhance the competitiveness of micro, small and medium enterprises. The MSME Act contains provisions for dispute resolution which are applicable to disputes involving suppliers. Section 18 of the MSME Act provides that any party with a dispute regarding amount due to a Supplier may make a reference to the MSME Facilitation Council (“Council”) for conciliation. If conciliation is unsuccessful, the Council may either take up the dispute itself for arbitration or refer the parties to an arbitral institution. Section 18(4) further provides that the Council or center providing the alternative dispute resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as an arbitrator or conciliator in a dispute between the Supplier located within its jurisdiction and a buyer located anywhere in India.Section 18 became contentious when multiple cases arose where a party involved in a dispute with a Supplier filed proceedings in court challenging its applicability to their dispute in light of the arbitration agreement entered between the parties. In general, presence of an arbitration agreement would not invalidate arbitration proceedings that have been initiated under the MSME Act, since the MSME Act is a special statute which would override any agreement between the parties. This position was also upheld by the Supreme Court. However, in those cases, the Supplier had initiated proceedings under section 18 of the MSME Act before the Buyer invoked arbitration under the agreement. These cases did not deal with a scenario where the Buyer invoked arbitration under the agreement where there was no reference of a dispute to the Council. For such situations, it has been held that, if the intention of section 18(4) of the MSME Act was to create a legal bar on a party who has a contract with a Supplier under the MSME Act from invoking section 11 of the Arbitration Act, then the legislature would have expressly provided that the MSME Act overrides any arbitration agreement entered under the MSME Act. Section 18(4) would come into play only in cases where a reference was made to the Council under section 18(1). The Court noted the use of the word “may” in section 18(1) and held that in light of the language used, it cannot be said to be mandatory for a Buyer to refer its dispute to the Council under section 18. Since the jurisdiction of the Council had not yet been invoked, there was nothing barring the court from appointing an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties.By making section 18 of the MSME Act directory, Buyers have been given a way out to circumvent the provisions under the MSME Act.Q. Which among the following is true regarding the author’s view with respect to the provision of dispute resolution under the MSME Act? 1. The author is supportive of the inclusion of a dispute resolution provision under the act. 2. The author feels that there exists loophole in the dispute resolution provision. 3. The author is of the opinion that the MSME Act could not ameliorate the competitiveness of the micro, small and medium enterprises.a)Only 2b)2 and 3c)Only 1d)1 and 3Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The primary objective of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, (“MSME Act”) is to facilitate the promotion and development and enhance the competitiveness of micro, small and medium enterprises. The MSME Act contains provisions for dispute resolution which are applicable to disputes involving suppliers. Section 18 of the MSME Act provides that any party with a dispute regarding amount due to a Supplier may make a reference to the MSME Facilitation Council (“Council”) for conciliation. If conciliation is unsuccessful, the Council may either take up the dispute itself for arbitration or refer the parties to an arbitral institution. Section 18(4) further provides that the Council or center providing the alternative dispute resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as an arbitrator or conciliator in a dispute between the Supplier located within its jurisdiction and a buyer located anywhere in India.Section 18 became contentious when multiple cases arose where a party involved in a dispute with a Supplier filed proceedings in court challenging its applicability to their dispute in light of the arbitration agreement entered between the parties. In general, presence of an arbitration agreement would not invalidate arbitration proceedings that have been initiated under the MSME Act, since the MSME Act is a special statute which would override any agreement between the parties. This position was also upheld by the Supreme Court. However, in those cases, the Supplier had initiated proceedings under section 18 of the MSME Act before the Buyer invoked arbitration under the agreement. These cases did not deal with a scenario where the Buyer invoked arbitration under the agreement where there was no reference of a dispute to the Council. For such situations, it has been held that, if the intention of section 18(4) of the MSME Act was to create a legal bar on a party who has a contract with a Supplier under the MSME Act from invoking section 11 of the Arbitration Act, then the legislature would have expressly provided that the MSME Act overrides any arbitration agreement entered under the MSME Act. Section 18(4) would come into play only in cases where a reference was made to the Council under section 18(1). The Court noted the use of the word “may” in section 18(1) and held that in light of the language used, it cannot be said to be mandatory for a Buyer to refer its dispute to the Council under section 18. Since the jurisdiction of the Council had not yet been invoked, there was nothing barring the court from appointing an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties.By making section 18 of the MSME Act directory, Buyers have been given a way out to circumvent the provisions under the MSME Act.Q. Which among the following is true regarding the author’s view with respect to the provision of dispute resolution under the MSME Act? 1. The author is supportive of the inclusion of a dispute resolution provision under the act. 2. The author feels that there exists loophole in the dispute resolution provision. 3. The author is of the opinion that the MSME Act could not ameliorate the competitiveness of the micro, small and medium enterprises.a)Only 2b)2 and 3c)Only 1d)1 and 3Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The primary objective of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, (“MSME Act”) is to facilitate the promotion and development and enhance the competitiveness of micro, small and medium enterprises. The MSME Act contains provisions for dispute resolution which are applicable to disputes involving suppliers. Section 18 of the MSME Act provides that any party with a dispute regarding amount due to a Supplier may make a reference to the MSME Facilitation Council (“Council”) for conciliation. If conciliation is unsuccessful, the Council may either take up the dispute itself for arbitration or refer the parties to an arbitral institution. Section 18(4) further provides that the Council or center providing the alternative dispute resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as an arbitrator or conciliator in a dispute between the Supplier located within its jurisdiction and a buyer located anywhere in India.Section 18 became contentious when multiple cases arose where a party involved in a dispute with a Supplier filed proceedings in court challenging its applicability to their dispute in light of the arbitration agreement entered between the parties. In general, presence of an arbitration agreement would not invalidate arbitration proceedings that have been initiated under the MSME Act, since the MSME Act is a special statute which would override any agreement between the parties. This position was also upheld by the Supreme Court. However, in those cases, the Supplier had initiated proceedings under section 18 of the MSME Act before the Buyer invoked arbitration under the agreement. These cases did not deal with a scenario where the Buyer invoked arbitration under the agreement where there was no reference of a dispute to the Council. For such situations, it has been held that, if the intention of section 18(4) of the MSME Act was to create a legal bar on a party who has a contract with a Supplier under the MSME Act from invoking section 11 of the Arbitration Act, then the legislature would have expressly provided that the MSME Act overrides any arbitration agreement entered under the MSME Act. Section 18(4) would come into play only in cases where a reference was made to the Council under section 18(1). The Court noted the use of the word “may” in section 18(1) and held that in light of the language used, it cannot be said to be mandatory for a Buyer to refer its dispute to the Council under section 18. Since the jurisdiction of the Council had not yet been invoked, there was nothing barring the court from appointing an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties.By making section 18 of the MSME Act directory, Buyers have been given a way out to circumvent the provisions under the MSME Act.Q. Which among the following is true regarding the author’s view with respect to the provision of dispute resolution under the MSME Act? 1. The author is supportive of the inclusion of a dispute resolution provision under the act. 2. The author feels that there exists loophole in the dispute resolution provision. 3. The author is of the opinion that the MSME Act could not ameliorate the competitiveness of the micro, small and medium enterprises.a)Only 2b)2 and 3c)Only 1d)1 and 3Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The primary objective of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, (“MSME Act”) is to facilitate the promotion and development and enhance the competitiveness of micro, small and medium enterprises. The MSME Act contains provisions for dispute resolution which are applicable to disputes involving suppliers. Section 18 of the MSME Act provides that any party with a dispute regarding amount due to a Supplier may make a reference to the MSME Facilitation Council (“Council”) for conciliation. If conciliation is unsuccessful, the Council may either take up the dispute itself for arbitration or refer the parties to an arbitral institution. Section 18(4) further provides that the Council or center providing the alternative dispute resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as an arbitrator or conciliator in a dispute between the Supplier located within its jurisdiction and a buyer located anywhere in India.Section 18 became contentious when multiple cases arose where a party involved in a dispute with a Supplier filed proceedings in court challenging its applicability to their dispute in light of the arbitration agreement entered between the parties. In general, presence of an arbitration agreement would not invalidate arbitration proceedings that have been initiated under the MSME Act, since the MSME Act is a special statute which would override any agreement between the parties. This position was also upheld by the Supreme Court. However, in those cases, the Supplier had initiated proceedings under section 18 of the MSME Act before the Buyer invoked arbitration under the agreement. These cases did not deal with a scenario where the Buyer invoked arbitration under the agreement where there was no reference of a dispute to the Council. For such situations, it has been held that, if the intention of section 18(4) of the MSME Act was to create a legal bar on a party who has a contract with a Supplier under the MSME Act from invoking section 11 of the Arbitration Act, then the legislature would have expressly provided that the MSME Act overrides any arbitration agreement entered under the MSME Act. Section 18(4) would come into play only in cases where a reference was made to the Council under section 18(1). The Court noted the use of the word “may” in section 18(1) and held that in light of the language used, it cannot be said to be mandatory for a Buyer to refer its dispute to the Council under section 18. Since the jurisdiction of the Council had not yet been invoked, there was nothing barring the court from appointing an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties.By making section 18 of the MSME Act directory, Buyers have been given a way out to circumvent the provisions under the MSME Act.Q. Which among the following is true regarding the author’s view with respect to the provision of dispute resolution under the MSME Act? 1. The author is supportive of the inclusion of a dispute resolution provision under the act. 2. The author feels that there exists loophole in the dispute resolution provision. 3. The author is of the opinion that the MSME Act could not ameliorate the competitiveness of the micro, small and medium enterprises.a)Only 2b)2 and 3c)Only 1d)1 and 3Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The primary objective of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, (“MSME Act”) is to facilitate the promotion and development and enhance the competitiveness of micro, small and medium enterprises. The MSME Act contains provisions for dispute resolution which are applicable to disputes involving suppliers. Section 18 of the MSME Act provides that any party with a dispute regarding amount due to a Supplier may make a reference to the MSME Facilitation Council (“Council”) for conciliation. If conciliation is unsuccessful, the Council may either take up the dispute itself for arbitration or refer the parties to an arbitral institution. Section 18(4) further provides that the Council or center providing the alternative dispute resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as an arbitrator or conciliator in a dispute between the Supplier located within its jurisdiction and a buyer located anywhere in India.Section 18 became contentious when multiple cases arose where a party involved in a dispute with a Supplier filed proceedings in court challenging its applicability to their dispute in light of the arbitration agreement entered between the parties. In general, presence of an arbitration agreement would not invalidate arbitration proceedings that have been initiated under the MSME Act, since the MSME Act is a special statute which would override any agreement between the parties. This position was also upheld by the Supreme Court. However, in those cases, the Supplier had initiated proceedings under section 18 of the MSME Act before the Buyer invoked arbitration under the agreement. These cases did not deal with a scenario where the Buyer invoked arbitration under the agreement where there was no reference of a dispute to the Council. For such situations, it has been held that, if the intention of section 18(4) of the MSME Act was to create a legal bar on a party who has a contract with a Supplier under the MSME Act from invoking section 11 of the Arbitration Act, then the legislature would have expressly provided that the MSME Act overrides any arbitration agreement entered under the MSME Act. Section 18(4) would come into play only in cases where a reference was made to the Council under section 18(1). The Court noted the use of the word “may” in section 18(1) and held that in light of the language used, it cannot be said to be mandatory for a Buyer to refer its dispute to the Council under section 18. Since the jurisdiction of the Council had not yet been invoked, there was nothing barring the court from appointing an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties.By making section 18 of the MSME Act directory, Buyers have been given a way out to circumvent the provisions under the MSME Act.Q. Which among the following is true regarding the author’s view with respect to the provision of dispute resolution under the MSME Act? 1. The author is supportive of the inclusion of a dispute resolution provision under the act. 2. The author feels that there exists loophole in the dispute resolution provision. 3. The author is of the opinion that the MSME Act could not ameliorate the competitiveness of the micro, small and medium enterprises.a)Only 2b)2 and 3c)Only 1d)1 and 3Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The primary objective of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, (“MSME Act”) is to facilitate the promotion and development and enhance the competitiveness of micro, small and medium enterprises. The MSME Act contains provisions for dispute resolution which are applicable to disputes involving suppliers. Section 18 of the MSME Act provides that any party with a dispute regarding amount due to a Supplier may make a reference to the MSME Facilitation Council (“Council”) for conciliation. If conciliation is unsuccessful, the Council may either take up the dispute itself for arbitration or refer the parties to an arbitral institution. Section 18(4) further provides that the Council or center providing the alternative dispute resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as an arbitrator or conciliator in a dispute between the Supplier located within its jurisdiction and a buyer located anywhere in India.Section 18 became contentious when multiple cases arose where a party involved in a dispute with a Supplier filed proceedings in court challenging its applicability to their dispute in light of the arbitration agreement entered between the parties. In general, presence of an arbitration agreement would not invalidate arbitration proceedings that have been initiated under the MSME Act, since the MSME Act is a special statute which would override any agreement between the parties. This position was also upheld by the Supreme Court. However, in those cases, the Supplier had initiated proceedings under section 18 of the MSME Act before the Buyer invoked arbitration under the agreement. These cases did not deal with a scenario where the Buyer invoked arbitration under the agreement where there was no reference of a dispute to the Council. For such situations, it has been held that, if the intention of section 18(4) of the MSME Act was to create a legal bar on a party who has a contract with a Supplier under the MSME Act from invoking section 11 of the Arbitration Act, then the legislature would have expressly provided that the MSME Act overrides any arbitration agreement entered under the MSME Act. Section 18(4) would come into play only in cases where a reference was made to the Council under section 18(1). The Court noted the use of the word “may” in section 18(1) and held that in light of the language used, it cannot be said to be mandatory for a Buyer to refer its dispute to the Council under section 18. Since the jurisdiction of the Council had not yet been invoked, there was nothing barring the court from appointing an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties.By making section 18 of the MSME Act directory, Buyers have been given a way out to circumvent the provisions under the MSME Act.Q. Which among the following is true regarding the author’s view with respect to the provision of dispute resolution under the MSME Act? 1. The author is supportive of the inclusion of a dispute resolution provision under the act. 2. The author feels that there exists loophole in the dispute resolution provision. 3. The author is of the opinion that the MSME Act could not ameliorate the competitiveness of the micro, small and medium enterprises.a)Only 2b)2 and 3c)Only 1d)1 and 3Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.