The judgment emphasized the principle that when a statutory alternative remedy is available, a writ petition may not be maintainable, but the petitioner may be permitted to pursue the statutory remedy.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award dated 03.11.2018 read with award dated 06.07.2018 alleged to be in clear violation of provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Mr.R.K. Mathur submitted that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in wake of availability of statutory alternative remedy to the petitioner to file an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the Act of 1996').

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanghi Industries Ltd. & Anr. v. Micro Small Enterprises & Anr. in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.591/2018, vide judgment dated 26.04.2018, has upheld the decision of the Single Bench and therein, the Division Bench has held that writ petition against the award is not maintainable before this Court and proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to approach the Competent Court which has been prescribed under the Act of 1996.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr.Virendra Lodha submitted that the petitioner has challenged the award dated 06.07.2018 and amended award dated 03.11.2018 and the petitioner received copy of said award on 19.11.2018.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present writ petition has been filed on 15.01.2019 i.e. within 57 days, after receipt of copy of the award.

6. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that remedy available to the petitioner, as per decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, is to file an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition within stipulated time, as prescribed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, the petitioner since persuaded the remedy in bonafide manner, may be permitted to file an application and delay which has been attributed in filing an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, may be directed to be condoned by the Court concerned, where the petitioner now intends to file an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.

8. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary Irrigation Department and Others reported in [(2008)7 SCC 169] and Simplex Infrastructure Limited v. Union of India reported in [(2019) 2 SCC 455].

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Mr.R.K. Mathur submitted that it is for the appropriate Court to consider the application to be filed by the petitioner and the issue of limitation is to be decided by the Court concerned, after considering the entire facts and law.

10. This Court finds that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in view of judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Sanghi Industries Ltd. (supra).

11. This Court, however, permits the petitioner to withdraw this writ petition and the petitioner is at liberty to file an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. The petitioner would be at liberty to file appropriate application for condonation of delay in filing the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. The Court concerned will decide the application of limitation as per available facts and law.

12. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.