TI Clean Mobility Pvt Ltd filed a petition before the Madras High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, 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, concerning allegedly defective EV chargers supplied by the respondent, 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Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006 before the MSEFC, the MSMED Act's non-obstante clause superseded the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.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 and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, noting that Section 18 read with Section 17 of the MSMED Act provides a specific remedy for suppliers to recover dues, with its own conciliation and arbitration mechanism, and that the non-obstante clause gives the MSMED Act primacy. The judgment text as provided is truncated before the final order is stated.