HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No.1235/2025 Union Territory of J&K through Executive Engineer, PHE Mechanical Procurement Division, Transport Nagar, Narwal, Yard No.1, Jammu ….Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through :- Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG V/s M/s JTL Infra Ltd ….Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. Karman Singh Johal, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER 31.07.2025 1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed the award order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, SAS Nagar, in Claim Petition No.79/2020 titled M/s JTL Infra Limited. vs. Executive Engineer, PHE Mechanical Procurement Division. 2 The main issue raised in the present petition pertains to the legality and propriety of the award passed by the Facilitation Council. However, upon perusal of the pleadings and the impugned order, it becomes evident that the issue sought to be agitated in the instant petition is no longer res integra. This Court has already dealt with an identical question in the case of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir vs. M/s JTL Infra Limited, WP(C) No.2673/2024 decided on 21.04.2024. In the said judgment, this Court had the occasion to consider whether a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an award passed by the Facilitation Council under the MSMED Act. After a comprehensive analysis of the statutory scheme of the 74 2 MSMED Act read with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and relevant precedents of the Supreme Court, this Court held as under: “From the above, the Court has come to the conclusion that the petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India thereby challenging an award passed by the Facilitation Council under the MSMED Act is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate proceedings in terms of MSMED Act.” 3 The reason behind the above decision is that once a dispute is referred under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, it is treated as an arbitration proceeding and is governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. As a result, if a party is aggrieved by the award, the proper legal remedy is to file a petition under Section 34 of that Act before a competent court. Since this remedy is adequate and effective, a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is not maintainable unless there are exceptional circumstances, which do not exist in the present case. In the present matter, the petitioner has directly invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court challenging an award passed by the Facilitation Council, without exhausting the remedy provided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 4 In view of the decision rendered in the case of M/s JTL Infra Limited (supra), which squarely covers the present controversy, this Court finds no justification to take a view different than the one taken in JTL Infra (surpa). Accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be not maintainable. The same is, therefore, dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail such remedies as may be available to it under law, including by invoking Section 34 3 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for challenging the award passed by the Facilitation Council, if so advised. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy involved in the present case. Jammu: 31.07.2025 Vinod ) (Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) Judge Vinod Kumar 2025.08.01 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document