TI Clean Mobility Pvt Ltd filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Madras High Court seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Basic Purchase Agreement dated 05.07.2024 with Senatla Innovative EV Components Pvt Ltd, relating to allegedly defective chargers supplied by the respondent causing brand damage, with a claimed outstanding amount of Rs.5,08,15,264/-. The petitioner also filed interim applications under Section 9 seeking security and a garnishee order against Prudential Sugar Corporation Ltd, which had entered into an MOU to acquire 76% stake in the respondent. The respondent opposed the petition, arguing that since it had invoked Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006 before the MSEFC, the MSMED Act's non-obstante clause overrides the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Mahakali Foods Pvt Ltd (2023) 6 SCC 401. The court examined the interplay between Section 18 of the MSMED Act (read with Sections 15, 16, and 17) and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, noting that Section 18's non-obstante clause applies specifically to recovery of amounts due under Section 17, and that the MSMED Act framework provides for conciliation followed by arbitration for such supplier dues. The judgment text as provided ends mid-analysis without recording a final operative order.