( 2026:HHC:22899 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8242 of 2026 Decided on : 17.06.2026 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited And another ...Petitioners Versus M/s Kaleshwari Power Products Private Limited …Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 31st October, 2022, which was duly passed on 26th July, 2024 by the Zonal Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Agra, whereby a sum of Rs. 30,075/- along with pendente lite and future interest was awarded against the present writ petitioner. The same was on the basis of the purchase order issued by the present writ petitioner and the said award came to be passed as the writ petitioner had not even filed any written statement. On 26th May, 2026, the following order was passed:- “Counsel for the petitioners prays for time to address the arguments on the issue of Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006 and on the issue of the maintainability of the writ petition to challenge the award once there is a statutory remedy provided under the Act for filing objection under Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996”. 2. Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to counter the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- said observations. The Apex Court has also held that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not ordinarily be available in (2025) 5 SCC 780 titled India Glycols Ltd. v. MSEFC, Telangana. 3. Another objection which would also lie against the present writ petitioner is that since the award has been passed by the Council at Agra, the same would have to be challenged by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Court having jurisdiction, as per the provisions of the said Act, would be the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the District concerned under Section 2(1)(e). 4. Resultantly, for the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered view that the present writ petition is not maintainable before this Court, also keeping in view the territorial jurisdiction involved in the challenge. Accordingly, the same is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 17th June, 2026 (Tarun Singh)