[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
M/S.Rs Development And Construction ... vs Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation ... on 20 February, 2026
W.P.No.31369 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.No.31369 of 2025
and
W.M.P.Nos.35112 & 55165 of 2025
M/s.RS Development and Construction India Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory, M.Thangaraju,
No.131/1, APT Road,
Erode – 638 003. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council,
Represented by its Chair Person,
Director of Industries & Commerce,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
2.M/s.Anitech Infra,
A partnership firm,
Represented by its Managing Partner,
T.Gagarin, A-10, RAMS Apartments,
21, Dr.Raja Annamalai Road,
Purasawakkam, Chennai – 600 084. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first
respondent comprised in order bearing reference
Ref.No.MSEFC/CR/360/2021 dated 20.12.2024, quash the same as
arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional.
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:26 pm )
W.P.No.31369 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramesh
For R1 : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.M.Mubarak Ahmad
for M/s.Ahmad Associates
ORDER
The petitioner challenges an award passed by the 1 st respondent
under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED)
Act, 2006, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2006 Act’).
2.The 2nd respondent herein had filed a petition under Section 18(1)
of the 2006 Act, on 18.10.2021. It claimed for the recovery of a sum of
Rs.2,38,22,126/-, together with interest against the writ petitioner. The 2nd
respondent claimed that it had entered into an agreement with the writ
petitioner, who had defaulted in payments of money due to it. It
submitted that, it made several requests, but as the payment had not been
made by the petitioner, it approached the 1st respondent for resolution of
the dispute.
3.Summons were issued by the 1st respondent to the writ petitioner.
The writ petitioner filed a reply to the same. In December 2022, as
mandated by the 2006 Act, the Council took up the matter for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:26 pm )
conciliation. However, the efforts for conciliation failed. Consequently,
the 1st respondent closed the conciliation proceedings on 22.02.2024, and
decided to proceed under Section 18(3) of the 2006 Act.
4.Notice of Arbitration was issued to the writ petitioner. The 1 st
respondent recorded that on 09.10.2024, the writ petitioner and the 2 nd
respondent were asked to give their consent to proceed with the
arbitration either by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council
(MSEF Council) itself, or require the matter to be referred to the Madras
High Court Arbitration Center. The matter was taken up on 14.11.2024.
On that date, the 1st respondent recorded that the 2nd respondent was
present, but the writ petitioner was absent. The matter was again called on
12.12.2024. On that day too, the Council recorded that the 2nd respondent
alone was present and the writ petitioner was absent. The case was again
adjourned to 20.12.2024. The same situation prevailed even on that day.
5.Pending the arbitration proceedings, the 2 nd respondent filed an
application in I.A.No.1 of 2024, seeking a relief under Section 17 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. By this application, the 2 nd
respondent called upon the 1st respondent to pass an interim order to
secure a sum of Rs.13,56,73,497/-, pending disposal of the arbitration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:26 pm )
st
proceedings. By an order dated 20.12.2024, the 1 respondent passed an
award, directing the writ petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,38,22,126/-,
together with compound interest with monthly rests, at three times the
bank rate, notified by the Reserve Bank of India and disposed of the
arbitration claim. Challenging the same, the present writ petition.
6.This Court entertained the writ petition, issued rule nisi and
granted an order of interim stay of the impugned award on 20.08.2025.
7.When the interlocutory application came up for hearing before on
11.09.2025, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of
Rs.2,79,45,258/-, in a fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank in the name of
the Registrar General of this Court, and granted four weeks’ time for the
said exercise. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.1,39,72,629/- in a
fixed deposit and handed over the same to the Registrar General in
compliance with the order granted by this Court. Thereafter, the interim
order was extended and the matter was posted for final hearing.
8.The 1st respondent has produced the records and the 2 nd
respondent has filed a counter. The pleadings having been completed, the
matter was taken up for final disposal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:26 pm )
9.I heard Mr.S.Ramesh for the petitioner, Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal,
Additional Government Pleader for the 1st respondent and Mr.Mubarak
Ahmad for the 2nd respondent.
10.After narrating the facts of the case, Mr.S.Ramesh urged as
follows:-
(i)The writ petition challenging the award passed by MSEF
Council is maintainable, as the order is in violation of the principles of
natural justice. He submitted that, the petitioner had attempted to login
for the hearings conducted on 14.11.2024 and on 12.12.2024 and that,
they were not permitted to enter the virtual hearing and hence, the
recording of the 1st respondent that the writ petitioner did not appear
before him on those two dates, which resulted in the award, is erroneous
and is a violation of principles of natural justice.
(ii)The order passed by the 1st respondent suffers from serious
lacunae of non-application of mind. He points out that the writ petitioner
had filed his counter, and the same had been recorded by the 1 st
respondent. However, while passing the award, the MSEF Council had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:26 pm )
recorded as if no counter had been presented.
(iii)The award is void, since the very same parties who had acted as
conciliators, had also acted as arbitrators. This being contrary to Section
80 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the award deserves to
be set aside.
(iv)Referring to Paragraph Nos.18 and 19 of the award, he points
out that no reason has been given by the MSEF Council for decreeing the
claim. This, he states, is violative of Section 31(3) of The Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, and on this ground too, he urges that the award
deserves to be set aside.
(v)Finally, he pleaded that this court, if it comes to a conclusion to
quash the impugned proceedings, it may refer the matter to the Madras
High Court Arbitration Center, instead of pushing the parties to file an
application under Section 11 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996.
11.Rejecting these arguments, Mr.M.Mubarak Ahmad pointed out
as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:26 pm )
(i)The writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner has an
effective alternate remedy by way of filing a petition to set aside the
impugned award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996.
(ii)The plea of the petitioner that the conciliation and the
arbitration proceedings were presided over by one and the same person is
factually erroneous. The conciliation proceedings had taken place in the
presence of the Regional Joint Director of the 1 st respondent, and he was
not a part of the panel of the Arbitrators who passed the final order.
(iii)Arbitration notices were sent as per Section 18(3) of the 2006
Act, pursuant to a decision taken by the Council on 19.06.2024, and that,
the petitioner was served with the summons on all occasions and that, he
had not appeared before the authority and hence, the petitioner cannot
blame anyone else, except himself for the award having been passed.
(iv)On the plea that the writ petitioner had filed a counter, but the
same had not been taken note of by the 1 st respondent, he urged that the
word ‘counter statement’ or ‘written arguments’ refers to filing a counter
statement to the statement of accounts filed by the 2 nd respondent. In any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:26 pm )
event, the counter statement that had been filed by the petitioner was
during the course of conciliation proceedings and not during the course of
arbitration and hence, it need not be referred to.
12.Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Additional Government Pleader has
produced the records and placed the same for the perusal of the Court.
13.I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and
gone through the records in detail.
14.Both the counsel argued on maintainability, as well as on the
merits of the case. When issues of maintainability are raised, I have to
deal with that issue first before proceeding on merits. This is because, if I
agree with the respondents on the issue of maintainability, I should not go
into the merits of the case.
15.It is the plea of Mr.M.Mubarak Ahmad that as the petitioner has
an effective alternate remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court should not interfere with the same in
exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Meeting this point, Mr.S.Ramesh invites my attention to the judgment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:26 pm )
the Supreme Court in Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Vs. State of
Rajasthan and others, (2021) 19 SCC 206. He states that, this very issue
had been a subject matter of discussion by the Supreme Court, which had
held that a writ petition is maintainable. A perusal of the judgment in
Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited‘s case, shows that the submission
of Mr.S.Ramesh is correct.
16.It is necessary for me to discuss the facts involved in that case
before its application to the case on hand. The appeal arose before the
Supreme Court from an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench. The appellant before the Supreme Court filed a
writ petition challenging the order passed by Rajasthan MSEF Council.
The Council, in that case, had called upon the parties to appear before it
for conciliation. On the date on which the parties were to appear, the
appellant did not do so. Hence, the Council passed an award directing the
appellant to pay an amount to the claimant. This order was challenged
before the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ
Petition No.11657 of 2017. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petition. Aggrieved by the same, the Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam
Limited preferred an appeal before the Division Bench in DB Special
Appeal Writ No.1854 of 2017. The Appellate Court confirmed the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:26 pm )
of the learned Single Judge. Challenging the said order, the original writ
petitioner preferred a special leave petition to the Supreme Court.
17.The point urged in the appeal was that when conciliation
proceedings fail, the Council should have called the parties to conduct
arbitration. Thereafter, it should have adjudicated the dispute between the
parties. However, in that case, the Rajasthan MSEF Council had passed
an award on the very day when it posted for conciliation. Hence, the
Supreme Court held that passing of an arbitration award on the same day
on which the matter is posted for conciliation is not in accordance with
Sections 18(2) and 18(3) of the 2006 Act and declared the award to be a
nullity. The Court held that there is no Arbitral award in the eye of law
and since, the award had been passed without recourse to arbitration and
in utter disregard of the proceedings of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996, Section 34 of the said Act will not apply.
18.In other words, this judgment would apply to a situation, where,
without calling upon the parties to appear for arbitration, if a MSEF
Council were to pass an award immediately on the closure of the
conciliation proceedings, then the award so passed cannot be treated as an
award itself. This is clear from a perusal of paragraph No.18 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:26 pm )
Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited‘s case. The Court had not held
that an award, even when validly passed after the issuance of summons, is
still susceptible to challenge by way of a writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
19.The Supreme Court was again presented with the very same
issue in Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mahakali
Foods Private Limited and another, (2023) 6 SCC 401. This judgment
came up before another two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court. The
attention of the later Bench was not drawn to the view earlier expressed
in Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited‘s case.
20.In Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd‘s case, the
Bench observed that on account of the non-obstante clause in Sections
18(1) and 18(4) of the 2006 Act, it will have an overriding effect over any
other law, including the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Having come to
this conclusion, the Bench held that a Council can act as a conciliator, and
on the completion of the conciliation proceedings, it can take up the issue
and decide the matter as an arbitrator. It further held that Section 80 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, will not act as a bar for the
Council to act as a Conciliator, and thereafter, as an Arbitrator.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:26 pm )
21.This judgment was taken note of by a three Judges Bench of the
Supreme Court in India Glycols Limited and another Vs. MSEF
Council, Medchal – Malkajgiri and others, (2025) 5 SCC 780. This case
arose on account of an application filed by one, M/s.S.R.Technologies,
before the MSEF Council in Telangana. The Council decreed the claim.
The award was challenged before the Telangana High Court by way of a
writ petition. A learned Single Judge of Telangana High Court allowed
the writ petition and set aside the award holding that the claim itself is
barred by limitation. This judgment was carried in an appeal before the
Division Bench. The Division Bench, speaking through Chief Justice
Ujjal Bhuyan, (as he then was) held that when the writ petitioner has an
adequate, efficacious and alternate remedy under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the learned Single Judge ought
not to have entertained the writ petition. Consequent to the aforesaid
conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the writ petition.
22.Challenging the same, an appeal was preferred by the original
writ petitioner before the Supreme Court. It was heard by a three Judges
Bench, consisting of Dr.DY.Chandrachud, CJ, J.B.Pardiwala and Manoj
Misra, JJ. This three Judges bench affirmed the view taken in the case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:26 pm )
Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mahakali Foods
Private Limited and another and dismissed the SLP, confirming the view
taken by the Division Bench of Telangana High Court. Hence, the law
declared by the Supreme Court as on 06.11.2023 is that, it is
impermissible for a person, who has a remedy under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to resort to a proceeding under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash an Arbitral award.
23.Subsequently, the Supreme Court, yet again considered this
issue in M/s.Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited Vs. Micro and
Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and another, (2025) 4 SCC 1.
This case was dealt by another three judges Bench. Speaking through
Justice Sanjiv Khanna, CJ, the Court observed that it has reservations on
the dictum rendered in M/s.India Glycols Limited case, that a writ
petition is not maintainable against any order passed by MSEF Council,
and that the only recourse available is to resort to Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It also noticed the divergence of
opinion taken in Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited‘s case, and
Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.‘s case and referred the
matter to be decided by a Larger Bench consisting of Five Judges.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:26 pm )
24.A reference to the Supreme Court website shows that the
reference is still pending and it has not been answered so far.
25.As to how a Court should proceed when an issue has been
referred to a Larger Bench has been settled by the Supreme Court in
Ashok Sadarangani and another Vs. Union of India and others, (2012)
11 SCC 321. The Supreme Court declared that pendency of a reference to
a Larger Bench does not mean all other proceedings involving the same
issue shall remain stalled till the judgment is rendered in the reference.
26.Therefore, the law that will be applicable, as on today, is the
view of the Three Judges Bench in India Glycols Limited and another
Vs. MSEF Council, Medchal – Malkajgiri and others, (2025) 5 SCC
780 (cited supra). If that verdict is to be applied to the facts of the present
case, then the writ petition would necessarily have to fail.
27.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is open to the
petitioner to avail the remedy under Section 34 of The Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:26 pm )
28.At this stage, I should point out that by an order dated
11.09.2025, I called upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of 50% of the
decreed amount of Rs.2,79,45,258/- to the credit of the Registrar General
of Madras High Court. In the event of the petitioner filing an application
under Section 34, he would have to deposit 75% of the award amount
before contesting the petition. The Registrar General of the Madras High
Court shall forthwith return the Fixed Deposit receipt to the petitioner.
29.On the aspect of limitation, the typed set of papers indicate that
though the order was passed on 20.12.2024, it was communicated to the
writ petitioner only on 10.07.2025. He had received the same on
12.07.2025. This writ petition was filed within 30 days, i.e., on
12.08.2025. Since the matter has been pending before this Court from
12.08.2025 till date, the said period will stand excluded for the purpose of
calculating the limitation to move the petition under Section 34 of The
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
20.02.2026
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:26 pm )
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
krk
To
1.Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council,
Represented by its Chair Person,
Director of Industries & Commerce,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
2.M/s.Anitech Infra,
A partnership firm,
Represented by its Managing Partner,
T.Gagarin, A-10, RAMS Apartments,
21, Dr.Raja Annamalai Road,
Purasawakkam, Chennai – 600 084.
3.The Registrar General,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
W.P.No.31369 of 2025 and
W.M.P.Nos.35112 & 55165 of 2025
20.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 08:20:26 pm )
