Supreme Court of India M/S Vijeta Construction vs M/S. Indus Smeleters Ltd on 23 September, 2021 1 2021 INSC 530 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5934 OF 2021 M/s Vijeta Construction ..Appellant (S) VERSUS M/s Indus Smelters Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondent (S) ORDER M. R. Shah, J. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 12.03.2012 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in writ petition (c) No.418 of 2012, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition as not maintainable in view of remedy available to the original petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act), the original respondent No.1 has preferred the present civil appeal. 2 2. That the dispute arose between the parties which could not be resolved. The case on behalf of the respondent herein was that it supplied TMT bar to the appellant herein valuing Rs.2,44,92,846/­ out of which it received Rs.1,24,50,000/­. The appellant had not made payment of the remaining amount, therefore, the respondent being supplier approached the Chairman, Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council (hereinafter referred to as the Facilitation Council) constituted under the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the MSMED Act) for small scale industries. 3. By order dated 10.01.2012 the Facilitation Council closed the said proceedings by observing that Facilitation Council has been constituted with limited object and jurisdiction and the Facilitation Council has no jurisdiction to make thorough enquiry and take evidence and decide truth about the challenged document. The Facilitation Council also observed that parties are at liberty to move before the competent court. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 10.01.2012, the respondent herein preferred writ petition (C) No.418 of 2012 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. 3 By the impugned order, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition by observing that order passed by the Facilitation Council rejecting the application can be said to be an award under Section 18 of the MSMED Act and as per Section 18 (2) and (3), the provision of the Arbitration Act shall apply to the dispute as if the arbitration was in pursuance of an arbitration agreement referred to Sub­Section (1) of Section 7 of the MSMED Act and therefore such an order would be amenable to the appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the district court. Thus by the impugned order the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternate remedy of filing an appeal against the order passed by the Facilitation Council dated 10.01.2012. 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition preferred by the respondent herein however holding that the order passed by the Facilitation Council rejecting the application can be said to be an award and therefore as per the provision of the Arbitration Act shall apply to the dispute as if the arbitration was in pursuance of an arbitration agreement referred to Sub­Section (1) of Section (7) of the Arbitration Act and therefore against such an order appeal 4 under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act shall be maintainable, the original respondent has preferred the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the Facilitation Council impugned before the High Court cannot be said to be an award as by such an order the Facilitation Council did not conclusively settle the dispute and rejected the