The court emphasized the limited scope of review power, the need for an error apparent on the face of the record, and the applicability of the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act to the arbitration proceedings under the MSME Act.

JUDGMENT :

Om Prakash Shukla, J.

1. Heard Mr. Madhusudan Srivastava, Mr. Sudeep Kumar, learned Counsel representing the review applicant and Mr. Rajesh Tewari, Mr. Vaibhav Tewari, Mr. Ritwick Rai, learned Counsel representing the respondents.

2. The review applicant has filed the present application under Chapter-V, Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules read along with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking review of the judgment/order dated 10th of October, 2023 passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 8012/2023 (M/s Docket Care Systems V/s Union of India Others), wherein this Court had passed the following order :

“1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajesh Tewari, learned Counsel for respondents no.2 & 3 and Shri Vaibhav Tewari, learned Counsel for respondent no.4.

2. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, leanred Counsel for respondents no.2 and 3, on the basis of instructions, has stated that an award has already been rendered by the Facilitation Council on 07.10.2023, a photocopy whereof placed before us is taken on record. A certified copy of the award applied for, if any, by the petitioner may be supplied to him not later than a period of ten days from the date of application.

3. Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.4 has also filed a short counter affidavit placing on record the details of arbitral proceedings transpired before the Facilitation Council and conducted under Section 18(3) of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (in short, 'MSME Act').

4. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that as against the award rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal on 07.10.2023, the petitioner has a remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

5. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to avail the alternative remedy, available to him, under law.

6. In view of the above, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed.

7. It is made clear that the all the legal issues shall remain open to the petitioner before the competent forum. The exemption application, if any, moved under Section 19 of MSME Act shall also be considered by the forum concerned on its own merit.”

3. This Court may not be unnecessarily detained with enumerating the detailed facts of the present case, suffice to say that this Court finds that the review of the aforesaid judgment/order dated 10th of October, 2023 has been sought by the review applicant on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of record as this Court without appreciating the judgement passed by the Apex Court in Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited V/s State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2021) 4 SCC 476 has relegated the review applicant to alternative remedy as available under the provisions of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Further ground has been urged relating to the manner in which the MSME Council has passed the award dated 7th of October, 2023 during the pendency of the Writ-C-No. 8012 of 2023 and the liberty/opportunity not having been provided to the review applicant to amend the said writ on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

4. The learned Counsel for the review applicant has also submitted that this Court in the judgment/order dated 10.10.2023 under review has failed to examine the infirmities committed by the MSME Council, which had the effect of making the entire proceedings under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2023 as well as the award dated 07.10.2023 a nullity in the eyes of law. Further, grounds of not following the provisions of Sections 20, 23, 24 and 25 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 in rendering the award dated 07.10.2023 has also been urged by the learned Counsel for the review applicant. Other additional ground of the respondent No.4 being not a “supplier” in terms of the provisions contained under Section 2 (n) of the MSME Act and the claim