Writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum to challenge an arbitral award concerning mixed questions of fact and law, such as limitation or procedural lapses. Parties must exhaust statutory remedies provided under the arbitration framework, as writ courts cannot circumvent these mechanisms through evidence appreciation.

JUDGMENT :

Garima Prashad, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 15.07.2021 passed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the “MSME Council”) under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “2006 Act”), whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 9,62,610/- along with interest of Rs. 14,53,225/-, totaling to Rs. 24,15,835/-.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned award has been passed ex parte and without due service upon the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner came to know of the award only in the third week of April, 2025. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Executing Court. An application was filed seeking recall of the order dated 13.03.2023, whereby the execution proceedings were directed to proceed ex parte. It is further stated that objections to the execution proceedings were filed on 13.06.2025. The said applications are presently pending adjudication.

4. It is further submitted that despite the pendency of the recall application and objections, the Executing Court is proceeding ahead with the execution proceedings without deciding the said applications, compelling the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the MSME Council lacked jurisdiction as the claim was barred by limitation, the last supply having been made on 18.02.2017 and the reference having been filed on 03.09.2020. It is further contended that the proceedings before the MSME Council were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice as no proper service was effected and the award has been passed ex parte without affording opportunity of hearing.

6. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon several decisions, which shall be dealt with hereinbelow, one by one. On the strength of the said authorities, it is sought to be contended that where arbitral proceedings suffer from a fundamental jurisdictional infirmity or are vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice, the High Court may, in appropriate cases, exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

8. The challenge raised by the petitioner essentially rests on two grounds, namely, absence of proper service before the MSME Council and the claim being barred by limitation. Both these issues are not pure questions of law but are mixed questions of fact and law. Determination of proper service would require examination of mode of service, acknowledgment, addresses and related material, while the plea of limitation would depend upon factual aspects such as date of supply, invoices, acknowledgments and course of dealings between the parties.

9. It is well settled that not every plea styled as one of “jurisdiction” can be entertained in writ jurisdiction. Where adjudication requires appreciation of evidence and determination of disputed questions of fact, such issues are required to be examined by the forum competent under the statute.

10. Proceedings under Section 18 of the 2006 Act culminate in an a