<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<root>
    <author>ENA</author>
    <category>Sectors</category>
    <date>2026-05-13 16:32:49</date>
    <fulldesc>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Lucknow, May 13 (KNN)&lt;/strong&gt; The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a writ petition challenging an ex-parte award passed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act (MSMED), 2006.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Court Upholds Arbitration Remedy Route &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The High Court said that the award is not maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy is available under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;A Division Bench comprising Justices Saral Srivastava and Garima Prashad dismissed a petition filed by Shri Krishna Nutrition India Pvt. Ltd. against an ex-parte award issued by the MSME Facilitation Council, which had directed the company to pay Rs 24 lakh.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The Bench observed that proceedings initiated under Section 18 of the MSMED Act culminate in an arbitral award and that the law already provides a remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to challenge such awards.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Company Challenged Ex-Parte MSME Award &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;Shri Krishna Nutrition India Pvt. Ltd. challenged the July 15, 2021 award, arguing it was passed ex-parte without proper notice. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The company said it learnt of the award only in April 2025 and later filed a recall plea against the execution proceedings, while also alleging that the executing court continued proceedings despite pending objections. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;However, the High Court noted that issues related to service of notice and limitation involved mixed questions of fact and law that required examination of evidence. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The Bench stated that such matters should be decided by the appropriate statutory forum rather than through writ jurisdiction.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Bench Warns Against Parallel Appeals Through Writs &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The court further cautioned that allowing writ petitions in such cases based on allegations of procedural irregularities would weaken the legal framework under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and effectively create a parallel appellate mechanism.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;Holding that awards passed under Section 18 of the MSMED Act must be challenged through the remedies available under arbitration law, the Bench found no exceptional grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The court also noted that the petitioner had already approached the executing court and raised similar issues there. Finding no manifest perversity in the award, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Impact on MSMEs&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;The ruling reinforces legal certainty for MSMEs by affirming that disputes under the MSME Facilitation Council must follow the arbitration framework. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;It helps prevent delays caused by parallel writ petitions, ensuring faster resolution of payment disputes and strengthening recovery mechanisms for MSMEs owed dues. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
&#13;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:14px&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;(KNN Bureau)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#13;
</fulldesc>
    <id>46105</id>
    <link>https://knnindia.co.in/news/newsdetails/sectors/allahabad-hc-bars-writ-petitions-against-msme-council-arbitration-awards</link>
    <pubDate>2026-05-13 16:32:49</pubDate>
    <source>knnindia.co.in</source>
    <title>Allahabad HC Bars Writ Petitions Against MSME Council Arbitration Awards </title>
</root>
