THE OVERRIDING EFFECT: COUNTERCLAIMS AND ARBITRABILITY UNDER THE MSMED ACT

The Delhi High Court's ruling in Jubilant Marketing v. Robbins Tunneling confirms that MSMED arbitration arises only once conciliation concludes, but leaves unanswered a question the Supreme Court's decision in Silpi Industries never resolved: what subject matter can a buyer's counterclaim actually reach. This piece argues that Silpi's concern was forum shopping, not scope, and that Section 23(2A) confines counterclaims to what a statutorily deemed agreement under Section 17 can textually support. A deduction tied to the same supply belongs before the Council. A claim for consequential losses does not, whatever label the buyer gives it.