Dismissed¶26

Lalit Narayan Mithila University v. Delhi International Arbitration Centre & Ors.

Delhi HC17 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/2249/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC (17.02.2026, W.P.(C) 2249/2026): challenge to MSEFC reference under Section 18 MSMED Act on sole ground that supplier executed work before MSMED registration; NBCC (India) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 2025 INSC 54, para 15 relied on as binding precedent — post-dispute MSME registration retains legal significance, pre-work registration of no consequence; petition dismissed, pending application disposed.

What did the court decide?

Relying on NBCC (India) Ltd. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors (2025 INSC 54), particularly paragraph 15, as a binding precedent, registration of an applicant under the MSME regime does not lose its legal significance merely because such registration was obtained after the dispute had arisen. ¶17

Lalit Narayan Mithila University Vs Delhi International Arbitration Centre & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the MSEFC could entertain a reference under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, with consequential arbitral proceedings, where the work forming the subject matter of the dispute was executed by Respondent No.3 prior to its obtaining registration under the MSMED Act.

¶17

Court's answer

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Consequently, registration of the MSME prior to the relevant work is of no consequence; the MSEFC reference under Section 18 of the MSMED Act and the consequent arbitral proceedings could not be challenged on the sole ground that Respondent No.3 executed the work before obtaining MSMED registration.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) 2249/2026, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.), decided 17.02.2026 — Lalit Narayan Mithila University v. Delhi International Arbitration Centre & Ors. The petition challenged the reference by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (Respondent No.2), under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, of disputes between the University and Respondent No.3 to arbitration, and the consequential arbitral proceedings, solely on the ground that Respondent No.3 executed the work before obtaining registration under the MSMED Act; the petitioner invoked Shilpi Industries v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. The Court, relying on NBCC (India) Ltd. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors, 2025 INSC 54 — particularly paragraph 15, holding that registration under the MSME regime does not lose legal significance because obtained after the dispute arose and that the Facilitation Council may entertain a Section 18 reference despite absence of registration under Section 8 — held that registration of the MSME prior to the relevant work is of no consequence, found no merit in the petition and dismissed it; the pending application was disposed of.

¶1

$~106

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2249/2026 and CM APPL. 10848/2026

¶4

Date of Decision: 17.02.2026

¶5

LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Nishi Kant Singh with Ms. Geetanjali Setia & Ms. Manisha Suri, Advs.

¶7

versus

¶8

DELHI INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE & ORS. .....Respondent Through: None.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶10

J U D G E M E N T

¶11

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

¶12

This petition is directed against the reference of disputes between the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 to arbitration by Respondent No.2, namely, the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council ( MSEFC ), in exercise of powers under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ( MSMED Act ), and the consequential arbitral proceedings arising therefrom. The challenge raised by the Petitioner is confined to a solitary ground, that the work forming the subject matter of the

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date :21. 02.2026 15:51:38

¶17

dispute was executed by Respondent No.3 prior to its obtaining registration under the MSMED Act. The sole challenge is on the ground that the work which formed the subject matter of the dispute was executed by respondent no.3 prior to its obtaining registration under the MSMED Act. The petitioner relies upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Shilpi Industries v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Anr¹ , to assert that dispute relating to contracts could not have been entertained by the MSEFC. The Court, while considering the issue at hand, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in NBCC (India) Ltd. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors¹ . And, more particularly, paragraph 15 thereof, wherein it has been unequivocally held that the registration of an applicant under the MSME regime does not lose its legal significance merely because such registration was obtained after the dispute had arisen. Paragraph no.15 of the said decision is extracted as under:

¶18

< 15. Having considered the definition of the expression 8supplier9, 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. =

¶19

In view thereof, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of NBCC would be a binding precedent and which unequivocally states that the registration of the MSME prior to relevant work would be of no

¶20