Subodh Abhyankar, J
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned award/order dated 09.03.2022
seeking the following reliefs:-
“i) Allow this petition and pass an appropriate Writ of Certiorari or Mandamus or other writ/direction as it may deem fit to direct the Respondent
Nos.2 & 5 to take immediate actions on the complaint filed by the Petitioner including registration of FIR and further investigation in the matter.
ii) Allow this petition and pass an appropriate Writ of Certiorari or Mandamus or other writ/direction as it may deem fit to quash the impugned order
dated 09.03.2022 passed in MSEFC/914/2019 by the respondent No.1.
iii) To pass such consequential orders this Hon'ble High Court deems fit.
iv) To pass any other or further order(s) deemed fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the matter.â€
2. Admittedly, the petitioner is aggrieved of the award dated 03.09.2022 passed by respondent No.1 Madhya Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprises
Facilitation Council. Although, counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that he is not challenging the aforesaid award per se
and is only seeking relief that the matter may be remanded back to the Facilitation Council so that the appropriate arbitration proceedings may be
initiated, as vide the impugned order the Facilitation Council, after the conciliation proceedings failed, has immediately embarked upon the arbitration
proceedings, which is against the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (Furnishing of Information) Rules, 2016 (in short 'MSME Rules,
2016').
3. Heard on the question of admission.
4. On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of the petition as also the documents filed on record, it is found that in para 3 of the petition, the
petitioner has stated there is no alternative remedy available against the impugned order, and also that the order has been passed in violation of the
principles of natural justice and fundamental rights of the petitioner as also the incorrect exercise of the jurisdiction. However, this Court finds that
against the impugned award dated 09.03.2022, passed under Section 18 (3) of the Act, a remedy is also available under Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 which has to be tried as an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the
concerned District Judge, with a precondition of depositing the 75% of the awarded amount.
5. In such circumstances, also taking note of the fact that the aforesaid provision of challenging the award prescribes pre-deposit of 75% of the
awarded amount, the petitioner has resorted to Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which, as has been held in various decisions rendered by this
Court as also by the Supreme Court cannot be entertained unless the 75% of the awarded amount is deposited, even in the High Court.
6. In view of the same, petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. However, with a liberty reserved to the petitioner to prefer an application
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the learned Judge of the concerned Court is also directed to decide the same in
accordance with law without being influenced by the order passed by this Court.
