MSME Council Award Passed on Same Day as Claim Calculation is a 'Nullity', Writ Petition Maintainable Without 75% Pre-Deposit: Orissa High Court - 2025-11-03

MSME Council Award Passed Without Hearing is a 'Nullity'; Writ Petition Maintainable, Rules Orissa HC

CUTTACK: In a significant ruling on the procedural sanctity of disputes under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006, the Orissa High Court has set aside a staggering Rs. 6.8 crore award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC). The court, led by Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi , held that an order passed without adhering to the mandatory procedures of arbitration, such as exchanging pleadings and conducting hearings, is a "nullity" and not a valid arbitral award.

The bench affirmed that in such exceptional cases of procedural collapse and violation of natural justice, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable, allowing the aggrieved party to bypass the statutory requirement of pre-depositing 75% of the award amount under Section 19 of the MSMED Act.

---

Background of the Dispute

The case involved a long-standing dispute between M/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd. (the Petitioner), a Government of India enterprise, and a supplier (Opposite Party No. 3). The supplier had approached the MSEFC in 2010, alleging delayed payments for a supply of iron balls.

The matter saw a convoluted procedural history, including a previous High Court stay on the MSEFC proceedings and a parallel arbitration that concluded neither party had a claim against the other. After the High Court quashed an earlier MSEFC order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in 2023, the case took a startling turn.

On July 30, 2024, the MSEFC at Rourkela, after noting the failure of conciliation, asked the supplier to submit a calculation statement. On the very same day the statement was produced, the Council passed a final award directing Hindustan Copper to pay Rs. 6,80,78,336/- as interest. This summary decision was made without calling for pleadings, affording an opportunity for a hearing, or examining evidence, prompting the current writ petition.

---

Arguments of the Parties

• Hindustan Copper Ltd. (Petitioner): Represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Gautam Mukherjee, the petitioner argued that the MSEFC's order was not an "arbitral award" in the eyes of the law. It was contended that the complete disregard for the procedures mandated by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—which applies once conciliation fails under the MSMED Act—rendered the order a nullity. This, they argued, made the writ petition maintainable as the statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act applies only to valid awards.

• The Supplier (Opposite Party): Senior Advocate Mr. Gautam Mishra, appearing for the supplier, countered that the writ petition was a tactic to circumvent the mandatory 75% pre-deposit required by Section 19 of the MSMED Act. They argued that any procedural deficiencies were grounds for challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, and the High Court should not use its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to bypass the specific statutory framework designed to protect small enterprises.

---

Court's Analysis: Distinction Between Irregularity and Nullity

Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi undertook a detailed analysis of the interplay between the MSMED Act and the Arbitration Act. The court clarified that while its power under Article 226 should be exercised sparingly, it is not ousted by the existence of an alternative statutory remedy, especially in cases of jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice.

The judgment emphasized a critical distinction: * Irregular Award: An award where the tribunal, after assuming jurisdiction correctly, commits errors in procedure or evidence appreciation. Such awards must be challenged via the statutory remedy (Section 34). * Nullity: An order passed without following the mandatory procedure at all. Where no pleadings are exchanged and no hearing occurs, the decision is "bereft of arbitral character" and is a nullity.

The court observed that the MSMED Act's Section 18 consciously separates conciliation (a facilitative process) from arbitration (an adjudicatory one). Once conciliation fails, the MSEFC must transition into the role of an arbitrator and strictly adhere to the procedures of the Arbitration Act.

In a key excerpt, the Court noted:

"The so-called award contains no discussion of facts, no examination of evidence, and no articulation of reasons. It is nothing more than a mechanical order of payment. Such an order, devoid of reasoning, cannot qualify as an arbitral award within the meaning of Section 31 of the A&C Act, and stands vitiated in law."

The Court also came down heavily on the growing trend of councils passing unreasoned orders in the name of expediency.

"Expediency can never be allowed to supplant legality; speed without substance erodes the very promise of justice which the MSMED Act was designed to secure," the judgment stated. "Reasons are the lifeblood of justice... an unreasoned award breeds arbitrariness, invites suspicion, and corrodes faith in statutory adjudication."

---

Final Decision and Implications

Finding that the MSEFC's order was a "null act in law" due to the complete absence of an arbitral process, the High Court allowed the writ petition. The impugned award dated July 30, 2024, was set aside.

The matter has been remanded back to the MSEFC for a fresh hearing, with a directive to decide it expeditiously within three months after providing a reasonable opportunity to both parties to present their cases. This judgment serves as a crucial reminder to MSME Facilitation Councils across the country that while speedy disposal is a goal, it cannot be achieved by sacrificing the fundamental principles of natural justice and the mandatory procedures of arbitration law.