ORDER : Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in nature of certiorari quashing/ setting aside the award dated 11.11.2022 passed by respondent No. 1 in Application No. CG/14/S/CGH/00278 by which arrears of unpaid money towards supply which comes to Rs. 3,68,91,729/- and as per Section 16 & 17 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short “the MSMED Act, 2006”) three times of the rate of interest fixed by the Nationalized Bank which comes to Rs. 2,55,99,678/- thus, total amount comes to Rs. 6,24,91,407/- has been directed to be paid to respondent No. 2 by the petitioner within 30 days, failing which the petitioner shall be liable to pay interest till its realization. 2. The brief facts of the case are that supply agreement dated 04.10.2018 was executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 for manufacturing of Indian Made Foreign Liquour (IMFL) produce required by or as per direction of the petitioner which is for supply to Chhattisgarh Stage Beverages Corporation Limited. As per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner has to share his technical know-how, manufacturing process, formula, trade secrets, brands & trade marks for Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) with respondent No. 2. The salient feature of the agreement are as under:- As per Clause 1.8 of the agreement, the cost of goods sold (means the total price at which RBC shall manufacture and supply finished goods and includes raw material(RM), package material and other manufacturing, sale and distribution cost, sales promotion and marketing research cost, all taxes duties and levies as applicable and shall also include the profit margin of RBC. This is the price which RBC shall charge from the petitioner for the manufacturing and supply of goods under this agreement. This is the price which RBC shall withdraw from the bank account as referred to it in clause 5.4. The current cost of goods sold is mentioned in Annexure 1 of the agreement. As per the Article 3 of the agreement, respondent No. 2 has to produce the raw materials from the suppliers approved by the petitioner. The raw materials/packing materials so procured by RBC shall not be used for manufacturing of other than for the manufacturing of IMFL. The current cost of goods sold is mentioned in Annexure 1 of the agreement. As per the Article 3 of the agreement, respondent No. 2 has to produce the raw materials from the suppliers approved by the petitioner. The raw materials/packing materials so procured by RBC shall not be used for manufacturing of other than for the manufacturing of IMFL. The Article 3.6 of the agreement provides that the petitioner shall advice respondent No. 2 of the sale price in favour of corporation in the State of Chhattisgarh on behalf of petitioner at the agreed terms and conditions. Clause D of this Article provides that notwithstanding any delay in collection, RBC shall make payment to the petitioner of all amount due to the petitioner under this agreement from its own sources. 3. During midst of their business transaction, a dispute had arisen between respondent No. 2 and the petitioner, therefore, respondent No. 2 filed a reference petition on 12.02.2020 (Annexure P/4) before respondent No. 1 mainly contending that it is a small scale unit as per the provisions MSMED Act, 2006. The respondent No. 2 has supplied the goods to the petitioner but has not paid the dues, which is payable within the stipulated time period as per the provisions of Section 15 of the MSMED Act, 2006, therefore, this petition has been filed and has prayed for claiming the principle amount payable Rs. 3,68,91,729/- along with interest as per Section 15 & 16 of the MSMED Act, 2006. The said reference application was registered as reference application bearing No. CG/14/S/CGH/ 00278. Respondent No. 1 issued notice to the petitioner and petitioner also appeared before the Small and Micro Industrial Facilitation Council, Raipur (for short “the Council”). The Council as per the MSMED Act, 2006 started conciliation proceeding, but the conciliation became failure on 16.02.2021. Thereafter the proceeding under Section 18(3) of the mediation was initiated and the matter was fixed on 06.03.2021. The petitioner appeared before the Council and submitted reply raising objection that the respondent No. 2 has concealed the material facts, as such the reference petition deserves to be dismissed. It has also been contended that the provisions of MSMED Act, 2006 is not applicable as there is in supply agreement dated 04.10.20218 executed between the parties , in the eventuality of any dispute or difference arising out of this agreement, an arbitration clause is there. It has also been contended that the provisions of MSMED Act, 2006 is not applicable as there is in supply agreement dated 04.10.20218 executed between the parties , in the eventuality of any dispute or difference arising out of this agreement, an arbitration clause is there. On merit, it has also been contended that the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount as claimed by respondent No. 2 and they are ready and willing to settle any of the issue pertaining to supply agreement and also willing to settle the present issue by making way of reconciliation of accounts. It has also been contended that respondent No. 2 has not disclosed the factum of receiving the payment from the petitioner amounting to Rs. 1.77 crores after 31.05.2019. It has also been contended that the petitioner has admitted the liability of Rs. 2.31 crores in its letter dated 21.05.2019 and has agreed to make the said payment according to the schedule mentioned therein. It has also been contended that on 10.06.2019, Rs. 30 lacs has been paid, Rs. 25 lacs on 26.06.2019 & Rs. 22 lacs on 02.07.2019, Rs. 80 lacs on 04.10.2019 as given in Schedule – C annexed with the reply. It has also been contended that as on today only non-reconciled balance of Rs. 54 lakhs is outstanding against the petitioner, however, the same is strict proof of reconciliation of the accounts between both the parties. Respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 11.11.2022 has allowed the reference petition. This order is being assailed by the petitioner before this Court. 4. This Court while admitting the petition has granted interim relief to the petitioner on 16.03.2023 and directed that there shall be stay of the effect and operation of the impugned award passed by the MSMED dated 11.11.2022 issued on 08.12.2022. The matter was taken up on 02.08.2023 wherein it has been transpired that the parties intend to settle their dispute through mediation, therefore, this Court has sent the matter to the Mediation Centre of this Court by directing them to appear on 11.08.2023, which became failure on 23.08.2023, therefore, the matter was listed before this Court and on 21.09.2023, this Court has passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the amount payable to the respondent has already been paid. This was vehemently objected by the learned counsel for the respondent and he would draw attention of this Court towards Annexure P/1 which is as per Clause 2.1 and would submit that it was agreed between the parties that what cost of manufacturing and other components are payable by the Jagatjit Industries to RBC and he would refer paragraph 1.8 of the Supply Agreement which reads as under :- “Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) shall mean the total price at which RBC shall manufacture and supply finished goods and include RM, PM and other manufacturing, Sales and distribution Costs, sales promotion and marketing research costs, all taxes, duties and levies as applicable and shall include the profit margin of RBC. This is the price which RBC shall charge from Jagatjit for the manufacture and supply of Finished goods under this agreement. This is the price which RBC shall withdraw from the bank account as referred to in clause 5.4. The current COGS is mentioned in Annexure – I.” The respondent has nowhere submitted what are the costs he has incurred as per the details given in paragraph 1.8. Let affidavit to this effect be placed on record. The petitioner is also directed to file what amount he has received from State Warehousing Corporation.” 5. This Court on 18.10.2023 has passed the following order:- “This Court on 21.09.2023 has directed the respondent No. 2 to file affidavit what are the costs he had incurred as per the details given in paragraph 1.8 of the Supply Agreement, but no affidavit to this effect has been filed. The petitioner has filed affidavit and counsel for the respondent wants more opportunity to file affidavit as per the direction given by this court on 21.09.2023. List this case on 09.11.2023.” 6. In pursuance of direction issued by this Court on 21.09.2023, the petitioner has filed an affidavit wherein the details of transactions between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have been clarified. The relevant Clause of the affidavit is as under:- “7. That the following factual position has emerged from the documents/records obtained from CSBCL and the reconciliation exercise carried out by the Petitioner pursuant thereto, as stated in detail in the aforementioned IA. No. 7 of 2023. The relevant Clause of the affidavit is as under:- “7. That the following factual position has emerged from the documents/records obtained from CSBCL and the reconciliation exercise carried out by the Petitioner pursuant thereto, as stated in detail in the aforementioned IA. No. 7 of 2023. (i) That the total amount of the primary sales supplies by Respondent No. 2 to CSBCL (including previous closing stock as nn 10.01.2019 and claimed invoiced sales by respondent No. 2 between 10.01.2019 to 18.03.2019) is a sum of about Rs. 5,31,37,925. The details of this amount are as under:- Particulars Amount (Rupees) Remarks Opening stock as on 10.01.2019 with CSBCL 1,63,33,920/- Reference may be made to Annexure P-17 & 18 (at page 15-16 & 17-18 respectively of LA. No. 7 of 2023) Primary sales supplies during the period between 10.01.2019 18.01.2019 3,68,04,005/- Reference may be madeto: Annexure P/4 (at page 86 to 101 of the writ petitions) Total 5,31,37,925/- (ii) That CSBCL follows the system of secondary sales for release of payments. The secondary sales of the aforesaid stocks happened between 11.01.2019 to 31.08.2019 and consequently CSBCL, remitted the corresponding payments accordingly from time to time (after deductions on come of breakage/etc.). (iii) That further, it is pertinent to state that CSBCL had revised the billing structure with effect from 01.04 2019 and accordingly there was a consequent collection increase by a sum of about R 76.486 after adjusting all the deduction (breakage etc.) by CSBCL. This increase is reflected in the total collection received from CSBCI, as stated in paragraph (iv) below). (iv) That the total collection amounting to a sum of Rs. 5,32,14,411/- was received from CSBCL, against the aforementioned supplies in the period between 27.02.2019 to 18.09.2019 in HDFC Bank Nc. No. 00030330002288 and HDFC Bank No. No. 00030330021230, The count stars of the relevant period of these bank accounts have also been filed. (iv) That the total collection amounting to a sum of Rs. 5,32,14,411/- was received from CSBCL, against the aforementioned supplies in the period between 27.02.2019 to 18.09.2019 in HDFC Bank Nc. No. 00030330002288 and HDFC Bank No. No. 00030330021230, The count stars of the relevant period of these bank accounts have also been filed. (v) That pertinently, under Article 54 of the Supply Agreement, respondent No. 2 is entitled to receive only the compensation Cost of Goods Sold '(COGS') as defined in Article 1.8 in respect of sales/supplies made to CSBCL under the Supply Agreement, and the Petitioner is entitled to retain with itself the difference between sale price and COGS i.e. Jagatjit's Margin Further, Article 54 of the Supply Agreement provides that respondent No. 2 shall not claim any money from the Petitioner towards COGS other than what is paid from the above-mentioned bank account. (vi) That out of the said amount of Rs. 5,32.14,411/-, a total payment of Rs. 4,93,77,673/- has been remited to respondent No. 2 on various dates between 27.02.2019 and 03.10 2019 towards its share CCOGS) under Article 5.4 of the Supply Agreement and payments made on behalf of Respondent No. 2 towards CVD challans, breakage challan etc. Further, out of the said amount of Rs. 5,32,14,411/- total sum of Rs. 38,36,738/- has been retained by the petitioner towards its margin in terms of Article 54 of the Supply Agreement. (vii) That the payments received by respondent No. 2 towards COGS are evident from the bank statements of the HDFC Bank A/c. No. 00030330002288, HDFC Bank A/c. No. 00030330021230 and ICICI Bank A/c No. 002905014607 mentioned above. The account statements of the relevant period of these hank accounts have also been filed. (vii) That the payments received by respondent No. 2 towards COGS are evident from the bank statements of the HDFC Bank A/c. No. 00030330002288, HDFC Bank A/c. No. 00030330021230 and ICICI Bank A/c No. 002905014607 mentioned above. The account statements of the relevant period of these hank accounts have also been filed. DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE AGAINST AFOREMENTIONED CLAIM S.No. Payment Date Amount Remarks A From HDFC Bank Account Na -00030330002288 27-Feb-19 5,800,000 1-Mar-19 1,600,000 15-Mar-19 5,234,343 29-Mar-14 7,326,366 26-Apr-14 4,030,727 6-May-19 257,483 16-May-14 2,005,000 31-May-19 780,563 30-Aug-19 1,200,440 Sub Total (A) 28,234,922 B From HDFC Bank Account No. -00030330021230 1,168,619 Sub Total (B) 1,168,619 C From ICICI Bank Account No. 002905014607 16-Apr-19 19,440,691 Sub Total (C) 19,440,691 D Other Payments made on behalf of Respondent No. 2 14-Jun-19 132,794 CVD Challan 3-Oct-19 139,610 Breakage Challan 3-Oct-19 261,037 Breakage Challan Sub Total (D) 533,441 Total (A+B+C+D) 49,377,673 (viii) A Statement of reconciliation in respect of the alleged claim of respondent No. 2 reflecting a summary of the above mentioned position has been filed along with IA. No. 7 of 2023 as Annexure P/32 (at page 706 thereof). Synopsis of reconciliation is as below:- Particulars Rupees (Crore) Opening Stock as on 10.01.2019 with CSBCL 1.63 Sales under claim Period 10:01 2019 to 18.03.2019 to CSBCL 3.68 Enhanced remittance received from CSBCL due to change in billing structure w.e.f. 01.04.2019 (Net of deductions) 0.01 Total Collectable against aforesaid stock 5.32 Collection against the aforesaid stock (including primary sales made between 10.01.2019 to 18.03.2019) received from CSBCI 5.32 Amount paid to Respondent No 2 towards its share ('COGS') under Article 5.4 of the Supply Agreement and payments made on behalf of Respondent No. 2 towards CVD challan, breakage challan etc. 4.94 Margin retained by Petitioner in terms of Article 5.4 of the Supply Agreement 0.38 7. In pursuance of direction issued by this Court on 21.09.2023, the respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit. The relevant portion of the affidavit is extracted below:- “3. That the said Supply Agreement clearly and unambiguously defined the parameters based on which the goods ordered were to be supplied - viz. the Selling Price, the Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) and Jagatjit's Margin. The relevant portion of the affidavit is extracted below:- “3. That the said Supply Agreement clearly and unambiguously defined the parameters based on which the goods ordered were to be supplied - viz. the Selling Price, the Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) and Jagatjit's Margin. The relevant clause of the Supply Agreement is reiterated herein below for ready reference: '1.8 Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) shall mean the total price at which RBC shall manufacture and supply finished goods and include RM, PM and other manufacturing, Sales and distribution Costs, sales promotion and marketing research costs, all taxes, duties and levies as applicable and shall include the profit margin of RBC. This is the price which RBC shall charge from Jagatjit for the manufacture and supply of Finished goods under this agreement. This is the price which RBC shall withdraw from the bank account as referred to in clause 5.4. The current COGS is mentioned in Annexure-I." (Emphasis ours)' Annexure-1 SN Brand Name Size Selling Price COGS Jagatjit Margin 1 AC Black Special Reserve Whiskey Q 2740.86 2555.86 185 P 2740.86 2555.86 185 N 2702.74 2517.74 185 2 New Improved Aristocrat Premium Whiskey Q 2162.31 2062.31 100 P 2031.81 1931.81 100 N 2064.74 1964.74 100 3 AC Neat Select Whiskey Q 2162.31 2032.31 130 P 2031.81 1901.81 130 N 2064.74 1934.74 130 4 Aristrocrat Deluxe Whiskey Q 1492.41 1462.41 30 P 1492.41 1462.41 30 N 1481.84 1451.84 30 4. That based on Annexure-1 and for better understanding and appreciation, the percentage wise share of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 is appropriated as under:- S N Brand Name Size Selling Price COGS % Share of Supplier JIL Margin % Share of JIL 1 AC Black Special Reserve Whiskey Q 2740.86 2555.86 93.25% 185 6.75% P 2740.86 2555.86 93.25% 185 6.75% N 2702.74 2517.74 93.16% 185 6.84% 2 New Improved Aristocrat Premium Whiskey Q 2162.31 2062.31 95.38% 100 4.62% P 2031.81 1931.81 95.08% 100 4.92% N 2064.74 1964.74 95.16% 100 4.84% 3 AC Neat Select Whiskey Q 2162.31 2032.31 93.99% 130 6.01% P 2031.81 1901.81 93.60% 130 6.40% N 2064.74 1934.74 93.70% 130 6.30% 4 Aristrocrat Deluxe Whiskey Q 1492.41 1462.41 97.99% 30 2.01% P 1492.41 1462.41 97.99% 30 2.01% N 1481.84 1451.84 97.98% 30 2.02% Margin of the Petitioner JIL vide the Supply Agreement is based upon prevalent market economic forces. 5. 5. That as per the said Clause of the Supply Agreement, the Supplier/Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioner had mutually, contractually and unambiguously agreed to the Selling price of the goods, the Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) and the Petitioner's/ Jagatjit Margin. 6. That the Respondent No. 2 was obligated to cover all its costs including manufacturing, raw material procurement, sales promotion, marketing research, administrative costs, taxes and duties, within the COGS decided at the time of executing/ concluding the Supply Agreement. 7. That even if the Supplier/Respondent No.2 incurred costs more than the agreed Cost of Goods Sold Amount at any time during the period of Supply Agreement, respondent No. 2 was debarred from seeking any excess amount, as per Clause 5.1 of the Supply Agreement.” 8. After filing of the affidavit, the arguments were heard on the question of maintainability of the writ petition as well as on merits. 9. Dr. N.K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shailendra Shukla, Mr. Kartik Nagarkatti & Ms. Rashika Soni, Advocats for the petitioner would submit that respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference or pass the impugned award and the impugned award is a nullity in law as there is no buyer-supplier relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, as such the provisions of MSMED Act, 2006 have no application. He would further submit that the provisions of the Act, 1996 will be applicable in the present case in view of arbitration clause of supply agreement dated 04.10.2018 and objection regarding jurisdiction can be taken at any stage of proceedings, even at the stage of execution of the award or decree passed by the Court. He would further submit that the provisions of the Supply Agreement clearly show that the petitioner is not a buyer qua respondent No. 2 as defined under Section 2(d) of the MSMED Act, 2006 and respondent No. 2 is not supplier qua petitioner as defined under Section 2(n) of the MSMED Act, 2006. He would further submit that there is no sale of goods or provision of services by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner and in fact respondent No. 2 was to supply the goods/ Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) to Chhattisgarh State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (CSBCL) and not to the petitioner. He would further submit that there is no sale of goods or provision of services by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner and in fact respondent No. 2 was to supply the goods/ Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) to Chhattisgarh State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (CSBCL) and not to the petitioner. He would further submit that the supply agreement is in the nature of licensing agreement where-under respondent No. 2 was to manufacture, sell and supply Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) to CSBCL at its own risk and cost, as per specifications of the petitioner and using the brand of the petitioner. He would further submit that the invoices were to be raised by respondent No. 2 on CSBCL and the responsibility of recovery was solely that of respondent No. 2, and any non-recoverable amount is the sole responsibility of respondent No. 2 and to its account. Respondent No. 2 was to be compensated at pre-determined prices against the manufacture and supply of IMFL only from the sale proceeds from the identified bank account under Article 5.4. Respondent No. 2 was required to withdraw the said amount from this account. The petitioner was entitled to receive a margin from the collections received in respect of such sales and on merit of the case, he would submit that the impugned award was passed without conducting mandatory statutory conciliation and jurisdiction and the impugned award was never triggered as respondent No. 1 did not conduct mandatory conciliation as required under Sections 65 to 81 of the Act, 1996 read with Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act, 2006. The requirements of, inter alia, Sections 65, 67 were not fulfilled, and respondent No.1 did not even call the parties for any conciliation meetings before it. The conduct of mediation proceedings is a statutory mandate which is required to be followed. 10. In the present case, since mediation proceedings were not carried out and conducted as per the provisions of the Act, 1996, the arbitration proceedings are without jurisdiction. He would further submit that the impugned award has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice. He would further submit that respondent No. 1 has not considered any of the submissions/ objections of the petitioner and documents relied upon by it in respect of jurisdiction as well as on merits, which were specifically pleaded and placed on record before the Council. He would further submit that respondent No. 1 has not considered any of the submissions/ objections of the petitioner and documents relied upon by it in respect of jurisdiction as well as on merits, which were specifically pleaded and placed on record before the Council. He would further submit that respondent No. 2 was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 17 lakhs to the petitioner and would submit that non-consideration of grounds urged and documents relied upon is not only a violation of principle of natural justice, but is also a perversity on the face of the record which vitiates the impugned award rendering it liable to be set aside. 11. He would further submit that existence of alternattive remedy is no bar to entertain the writ petition and grant the reliefs prayed for. In the present case, the impugned award has clearly been passed wholly without jurisdiction, and is, further, grossly vitiated by violation of principle of natural justice. It is well-settled that when the proceedings before a statutory authority are de hors jurisdiction or when there is a violation of natural justice, a party is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India, notwithstanding existence of an alternate remedy. 12. He would further submit that when the issue that is raised is one of gross or palpable violation of the principle of natural justice, the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006 is no bar to the Court exercising its authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, there is no bar or restriction for this Hon'ble Court to entertain the present petition and grant the reliefs prayed for. 13. He would further submit that in the present case, as aforementioned, the petitioner has filed the petition under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 strictly without prejudice to its rights and contentions raised before this Hon'ble Court in the present writ petition, and as a matter of abundant precaution only in view of mandatory time lines under Section 34(3) of the Act, 1996 to file a petition under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act for seeking setting aside of an arbitral award, and to avoid any possible technical objection in future in relation to the present writ petition. The petitioner has, furthermore, sought sine die adjournment of its petition under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 in view of the fact that the present writ petition is sub judice before this Hon'ble Court. As such, mere filing of the petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act does not mean that the petitioner is invoking multiple/simultaneous remedies. In light of the aforesaid, he would pray for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the impugned award dated 11.11.2022 passed by respondent No. 1. 14. To substantiate his submission, he would rely upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Unit 2) & Anr. reported in 2022 SCCOnline SC 1492, Anupam Industry Ltd. Vs The State Level Industry Facilitation Council reported in MANU/GJ/3013/2022, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2021 SCCOnline SC 1257, Indu Projects Ltd. Vs Telangana Micro & Smal Enterprises Facilitation Council and others reported in MANU/TL/0466/2019, Atlas Cycle (Haryana) Ltd. v Kitab Singh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 573 , Best Agrolife Ltd. v. Deputy Controller of Patents & another reported in 2022 SCCOnline Del 1982, S. Umavathi and others Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh others reported in MANU/AP/2240/2022, Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai and others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 , Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs Excise and Taxation Officer-cum- Assessing reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 95, Kalpraj Dharamshi & another Vs. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. & another reported in (2021) 10 SCC 401 , Agriculture Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and others reported in MANU/WB/0722/2013, M/s India Glycols Limited and another Vs. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Medchal-Malkajgiri and Others bearing Civil Appeal No. 7491 of 2023, Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority Vs. Aska Equipments Limited reported in (2022) 1 SCC 61 , Lakshmi Rattan Engineering Works Vs. Asst. Commr. Sales Tax, Kanpur & another reported in (1968) 1 SCR 505 , E-Square Leisure Pvt. Ltd. Pune Vs. K.K. Dani Consultants & Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Reported in Pune (2013)(3)MhLJ 24, Ravindranath GE Medicate Associate Pvtl Ltd. Vs. Clean Coats Pvt. Ltd., reported in Ambernath 2016 (6)MhLJ 49 , Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Limited & others Vs. Asst. Commr. Sales Tax, Kanpur & another reported in (1968) 1 SCR 505 , E-Square Leisure Pvt. Ltd. Pune Vs. K.K. Dani Consultants & Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Reported in Pune (2013)(3)MhLJ 24, Ravindranath GE Medicate Associate Pvtl Ltd. Vs. Clean Coats Pvt. Ltd., reported in Ambernath 2016 (6)MhLJ 49 , Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Limited & others Vs. Asian School of Business Management Trust & others, reported (2013) 8 SCC 738 & M/s JMS Mining Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Chhattisgasrh & others (Neutral Citation- 2017:CGHC:9423-DB). 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would submit that the instant writ petition is not maintainable before this Hon'ble Court in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 34 of the the Act, 1996 read with Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, 2006. He would further submit that the impugned award dated 11.11.2022 has been passed by respondent No. 1 under the provisions of the MSMED Act, 2006 and in accordance with the statute, the same is required to be challenged under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 read with Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, 2006 before the appropriate forum i.e. the learned Commercial Court of Chhattisgarh (State Level, Nava Raipur, Raipur (C.G.). He would further submit that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of M/s JMS Mining Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has dealt with the identical issue as to whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable against an award passed under the provisions of MSMED Act, 2006, in view of alternative remedy under Section 34 of the Act, 1996. It is submitted that in the said matter also, the appellants had challenged the impugned award before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction while simultaneously invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that in the said matter also, the appellants had challenged the impugned award before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction while simultaneously invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that after going through the facts and submission of the aforesaid case, the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court held that the award made by the Chhattisgarh Council under the MSMED Act, 2006 could be challenged only under the provisions of the Act, 1996 and further, the awards which are sought to be impeached before the learned Single Judge have been challenged before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in terms of the provisions of the Act 1996, in such cases, there is no room to independently challenge those awards passed under the provisions of MSMED Act, 2006. 16. He would further submit that recently Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of M/s India Glycols Limited (supra) has considered the issue as to whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an award passed under the provisions of MSMED Act, 2006 is maintainable and laying down the precedent, held that entertaining of a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, in order to obviate compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006, would defeat the object and purpose of the special enactment which has been legislated upon by the Parliament, therefore, Hon'ble the Court Supreme Court has conclusively settled the law on this issue holding that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an award passed under the provisions of MSMED Act, 2006 is not maintainable. He would further submit that in the present case, the petitioner had raised issueof jurisdiction before respondent No. 1 which has been duly dealt by respondent No. 1, as such, in view of the submissions made above, if the petitioner is aggrieved with the finding of respondent No. 1, the statutory recourse would be to file an application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 read with Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, 2006 and the instant writ petition shall not be entertained. He would further submit that the petitioner herein has already availed the statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Act 1996 read with Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, 2006 and has filed an application before the learned Commercial Court of Chhattisgarh (District Level), Nava Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh challenging the impugned award dated 11.11.2022 passed by respondent No. 1, therefore, in view of the fact that the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy and has liberty to raise all the issues before the learned Commercial Court, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold, since the law doesn't grant liberty to the petitioner to pursue parallel remedies before two different forums. He would further submit that in view of the fact that there exist an alternative remedy under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 read with Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, 2006 for challenging the impugned award dated 11.11 2022 and the petitioner has already availed the said statutory remedy, the instant writ petition shall not be entertained and the petitioner should not be allowed to pursue parallel remedies, it is an abuse of process of court. He would further submit that the instant writ petition has been filed only with the intent to circumvent the above-mentioned mandatory requirement envisaged under Section 19 of the MSMED Act, 206 and the same cannot be permitted in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority (supra) and M/s India Glycols Limited (supra) and would pray dismissal of the writ petition. 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 18. From the above-stated factual matrix and extensive submissions made by both the counsels, the point emerged for determination of this Court, is:- “whether against the award passed by the Council constituted under the MSMED Act, 2006 the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable.” 19. 18. From the above-stated factual matrix and extensive submissions made by both the counsels, the point emerged for determination of this Court, is:- “whether against the award passed by the Council constituted under the MSMED Act, 2006 the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable.” 19. To appreciate the submission and the point for determination, it is expedient for this Court to extract relevant provisions of the MSMED Act, 2006 which reads as under:- “Section 2(d)- “buyer” means whoever buys any goods or receives any services from a supplier for consideration; Section 2(g)- “medium enterprise” means an enterprise classified as such under sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) or sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 7; Section (n)- “supplier” means a micro or small enterprise, which has filed a memorandum with the authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 8, and includes,— (i) the National Small Industries Corporation, being a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (ii) the Small Industries Development Corporation of a State or a Union territory, by whatever name called, being a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (iii) any company, co-operative society, trust or a body, by whatever name called, registered or constituted under any law for the time being in force and engaged in selling goods produced by micro or small enterprises and rendering services which are provided by such enterprises; Section 15- Liability of buyer to make payment.— Where any supplier, supplies any goods or renders any services to any buyer, the buyer shall make payment therefor on or before the date agreed upon between him and the supplier in writing or, where there is no agreement in this behalf, before the appointed day:Provided that in no case the period agreed upon between the supplier and the buyer in writing shall exceed forty-five days from the day of acceptance or the day of deemed acceptance. Section 18- Reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council.— (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any party to a dispute may, with regard to any amount due under section 17, make a reference to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. Section 18- Reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council.— (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any party to a dispute may, with regard to any amount due under section 17, make a reference to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. (2) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Council shall either itself conduct conciliation in the matter or seek the assistance of any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services by making a reference to such an institution or centre, for conducting conciliation and the provisions of sections 65 to 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to such a dispute as if the conciliation was initiated under Part III of that Act. (3) Where the conciliation initiated under sub-section (2) is not successful and stands terminated without any settlement between the parties, the Council shall either itself take up the dispute for arbitration or refer to it any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services for such arbitration and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall then apply to the dispute as if the arbitration was in pursuance of an arbitration agreement referred to in sub- section (1) of section 7 of that Act. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council or the centre providing alternate dispute resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as an Arbitrator or Conciliator under this section in a dispute between the supplier located within its jurisdiction and a buyer located anywhere in India. (5) Every reference made under this section shall be decided within a period of ninety days from the date of making such a reference. (5) Every reference made under this section shall be decided within a period of ninety days from the date of making such a reference. Section 19- Application for setting aside decree, award or order.—No application for setting aside any decree, award or other order made either by the Council itself or by any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services to which a reference is made by the Council, shall be entertained by any court unless the appellant (not being a supplier) has deposited with it seventy-five per cent of the amount in terms of the decree, award or, as the case may be, the other order in the manner directed by such court: Provided that pending disposal of the application to set aside the decree, award or order, the court shall order that such percentage of the amount deposited shall be paid to the supplier, as it considers reasonable under the circumstances of the case subject to such conditions as it deems necessary to impose.” 20. Section 30 of the MSMED Act, 2006 empowered the State Government to make rules to carry out the provisions of this act in exercise of power under Section 30 of the Act, 2006, the State of Chhattisgarh has framed Chhattisgarh Industrial Facilitation Council, Rules, 2017 (for short “the Rules, 2017”). The Rule 7 which provides the procedure to be followed by the Council while conducting the proceedings under the MSMED Act, 2006, which reads as under:- “Rule 7. Procedure to be followed in the discharge of functions of the CounciI.- (I)An aggrieved Micro Or Small Enterprises unit can move a reference to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, having jurisdiction of the area, in the format provided in Schedule [of these rules. The reference must have the Udyog Aadhar Memorandum number (UAM), mobile number and email address of aggrieved Micro or Small Enterprises unit as provided in Schedule I. (2) Such references should be attached with fee or processing charges as notified by the Government, as provided under sub- rule(4) of RUle 3 and with an undertaking from aggrieved Micro or Small Enterprises unit that it has not moved any reference before the Civil Court on the same dispute. (3) Upon receipt of reference from the supplier Micro or Small Enterprises unit, the Secretariat of the Council shall enter the data in the web portal created for this purpose. (3) Upon receipt of reference from the supplier Micro or Small Enterprises unit, the Secretariat of the Council shall enter the data in the web portal created for this purpose. (4) After entering the date, acknowledgement of the reference shall be issued by the Secretariat to the applicant Micro or Small Enterprises unit through email. (5) The Council may examine the reference at preliminary stage to check regarding the fee or competency of MSE unit to file the reference. (6) In case if the reference or the particulars entered in it are not found to the satisfaction of Council, it may return the reference. (7) The Council shall either itself conduct conciliation in the matter or seek the assistance of any institute for conducting the conciliation and if it decides to do so, it shall refer the parties to the Institute. (8) The institute to which the issue is referred shall make efforts to bring about conciliation and it shall submit its Report to the Council as soon as possible, usually within 15 days from reference to the Council. (9) Where the Conciliation is not successful and stands terminated without any settlement between the parties, the Council shall either itself take up the dispute for further action, i.e., arbitration or refer it to an institute for the same. (10) If the matter is referred to the institute, the institute shall arbitrate the issue as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) and refer the award to the Council. (11) The Council after finalizing the award, or receiving the award from the Institute shall consider the case and pass appropriate final order in the matter.” 21. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner would submit that alternative remedy is no bar to entertain the writ petition by this Court as there is no disputed fact involved in this case, as such, he would pray for hearing the writ petition on merit. To substantiate his submission, he has referred to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai and others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 , Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 95, Kalpraj Dharamshi & another Vs. Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. & another reported in (2021) 10 SCC 401 . Kotak Investment Advisors Ltd. & another reported in (2021) 10 SCC 401 . This was vehemently objected by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and would submit that the facts are in dispute which can be very well examined by the court while hearing the application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996. 22. Now submissions with regard to entertainment of the writ petition by this Court are being considered. This Court during pendency of the writ petition has directed the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 to file an affidavit which has already been extracted by this Court in the foregoing paragraph of this judgment which clearly demonstrate that the petitioner has made submissions in the affidavit that no payment is outstanding against the petitioner in-fact the petitioner has to claim Rs. 17 lacs from respondent No. 2, which was disputed by respondent No. 2 but respondent No. 2 has not clarified as per Clause 1.8 of the Supply Agreement what are the dues, he is entitled to recover from the petitioner. Since it is a disputed fact which can be very well ascertained after considering the documents and material placed on record by the court while hearing the application under Section 34 of the MSMED Act, 2006. As such, the writ petition for deciding the lis between the parties where disputed facts are involved, the writ court should not normally entertain by the writ court as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771 and has held as under:- “27. Principles of law which emerge are that: (i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well; (ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. Principles of law which emerge are that: (i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well; (ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person; (2003) 2 SCC 107 PART C (iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged; (iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law; (v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and (vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with. 28. These principles have been consistently upheld by this Court in Seth Chand Ratan v Pandit Durga Prasad, Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v Nandlal Khodidas Barot and Rajasthan SEB v. Union of India, among other decisions.” 23. Considering the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Radha Krishna (supra) and there is disputed facts regarding amount of payment which is arising out of purely contractual dispute between the parties, the submission made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition should be entertained and decided on merit, deserves to be rejected as being contractual dispute involving disputed facts. 24. Now the issue with regard to maintainability of the writ petition in view of the remedy of filing application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, is being considered and examined in view of the provisions and the schemes of the MSMED Act, 2006. 25. From bare perusal of provisions of the MSMED Act, 2006 and the Rules made therein, it is quite vivid that the Facilitation Council has jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the supplier and buyer regarding non-payment or delayed payment of the supply made by the supplier. Thereafter, if the supplier is aggrieved with the award passed by the Council, the remedy available to him under Section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006 for setting aside decree award or order before the courts subject to condition of depositing 75% of the amount in terms of decree, award or as the case may be, the other order in the manner directed by such court. Admittedly, no such deposition of 75% of the amount has been brought on record by the petitioner before this Court and also considering the fact that the petitioner has alternate and efficacious remedy of filing application for setting aside award, is available, the writ petition at this juncture, is not maintainable. The issue with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition by the High Court under the MSMED Act, 2006 has come up for consideration before Hon’ble the Supreme in case of Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority Vs. Aska Equipments Limited reported in (2022) 1 SCC 61 wherein it has been held as under:- “13. On a plain/fair reading of Section 19 of the MSME Act, 2006, reproduced hereinabove, at the time/before entertaining the application for setting aside the award made under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, the applicant/appellant has to deposit 75% of the amount in terms of the award as a pre-deposit. The requirement of deposit of 75% of the amount in terms of the award as a pre-deposit is mandatory. However, at the same time, considering the hardship which may be projected before the appellate court and if the appellate court is satisfied that there shall be undue hardship caused to the appellant/applicant to deposit 75% of the awarded amount as a pre- deposit at a time, the court may allow the pre-deposit to be made in instalments. 14. However, at the same time, considering the hardship which may be projected before the appellate court and if the appellate court is satisfied that there shall be undue hardship caused to the appellant/applicant to deposit 75% of the awarded amount as a pre- deposit at a time, the court may allow the pre-deposit to be made in instalments. 14. An identical question came to be considered by this Court in the case of Goodyear India Limited (supra). In paragraphs 10 & 11, this Court observed and held as under: “10. In his submissions, Mr Ramachandran has referred to the various decisions, all of which, however, are in the context of enactments in which discretion has been left to the appellate body to either waive or reduce the amount of pre-deposit, which factor is absent in the present case. In support of his contention, however, he referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court in Snehadeep Structures (P) Ltd. v. Maharashtra Small-Scale Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. (2010) 3 SCC 34 whereinwhile considering the question as to whether an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, could be treated to be an appeal, a question incidentally arose as to whether if the same was to be treated as an appeal, would it be necessary to comply with the provisions of Section 19 of the 2006 Act. Their Lordships observed that the provision, no doubt, requires pre-deposit to be made before an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is filed, but that they were not inclined to read that provision into the provision in question. The facts of the said case are different from the facts of this case and it would be difficult to import the ratio of the decision in the above case into the facts of this case. 11. Having considered the submissions made, both on behalf of the petitioner and on behalf of the respondents, we do not see any reason to interfere with the views expressed, both by the learned Single Judge, as also the Division Bench with regard to Section 19 of the 2006 Act. 11. Having considered the submissions made, both on behalf of the petitioner and on behalf of the respondents, we do not see any reason to interfere with the views expressed, both by the learned Single Judge, as also the Division Bench with regard to Section 19 of the 2006 Act. It may not be out of place to mention that the provisions of Section 19 of the 2006 Act, had been challenged before the Kerala High Court in Kerala SRTC v. Union of India [ (2010) 1 KLT 65 ], where the same submissions were negated and, subsequently, the matter also came up to this Court, when the special leave petitions were dismissed, with leave to make the pre-deposit in the cases involved, within an extended period of ten weeks. We may also indicate that the expression “in the manner directed by such court” would, in our view, indicate the discretion given to the court to allow the pre-deposit to be made, if felt necessary, in instalments.” 15. In view of the above and considering the language used in Section 19 of the MSME Act, 2006 and the object and purpose of providing deposit of 75% of the awarded amount as a pre-deposit while preferring the application/appeal for setting aside the award, it has to be held that the requirement of deposit of 75% of the awarded amount as a pre- deposit is mandatory. Therefore, as such, both the High Court as well as the learned Additional District Judge (Commercial), Dehradun were justified in directing the appellant to deposit 75% of the awarded amount as a pre-deposit.” 26. Again Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of M/s India Glycols Limited and another Vs. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Medchal-Malkajgiri and Others bearing Civil Appeal No. 7491 of 2023 (decided on 06.11.2023) wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held as under:- “10. In terms of Section 19, an application for setting aside an award of the Facilitation Council cannot be entertained by any court unless the appellant has deposited seventy- five per cent of the amount in terms of the award. In terms of Section 19, an application for setting aside an award of the Facilitation Council cannot be entertained by any court unless the appellant has deposited seventy- five per cent of the amount in terms of the award. In view of the provisions of Section 18(4), where the Facilitation Council proceeds to arbitrate upon a dispute, the provisions of the Act of 1996 are to apply to the dispute as if it is in pursuance of an arbitration agreement under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of that Act. Hence, the remedy which is provided under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 would govern an award of the Facilitation Council. However, there is a super added condition which is imposed by Section 19 of MSMED Act 2006 to the effect that an application for setting aside an award can be entertained only upon the appellant depositing with the Council seventy-five per cent of the amount in terms of the award. Section 19 has been introduced as a measure of security for enterprises for whom a special provision is made in the MSMED Act by Parliament. In view of the provisions of Section 18(4), the appellant had a remedy under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 to challenge the award which it failed to pursue. 11. In the judgment of this Court in Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (supra), a two-Judge Bench of the Court has observed, in the course of drawing its conclusions, that: “The proceedings before the Facilitation Council/institute/centre acting as an arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act 2006 would be governed by the Arbitration Act, 1996.” 12. The appellant failed to avail of the remedy under Section 34. If it were to do so, it would have been required to deposit seventy-five per cent of the decretal amount. This obligation under the statute was sought to be obviated by taking recourse to the jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. This was clearly impermissible. 13. For the above reasons, we are in agreement with the view of the Division Bench of the High Court that the writ petition which was instituted by the appellant was not maintainable. 14. This obligation under the statute was sought to be obviated by taking recourse to the jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. This was clearly impermissible. 13. For the above reasons, we are in agreement with the view of the Division Bench of the High Court that the writ petition which was instituted by the appellant was not maintainable. 14. Mr Parag P Tripathi, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant sought to urge that the view of the Facilitation Council to the effect that the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963 have no application, which has been affirmed by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment, suffers from a perversity, and hence a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ought to have been entertained. We cannot accept this submission for the simple reason that Section 18 of the MSMED Act 2006 provides for recourse to a statutory remedy for challenging an award under the Act of 1996. However, recourse to the remedy is subject to the discipline of complying with the provisions of Section 19. The entertaining of a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, in order to obviate compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 19, would defeat the object and purpose of the special enactment which has been legislated upon by Parliament. 15. For the above reasons, we affirm the decision of the Division Bench by holding that it was justified in coming to the conclusion that the petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution instituted by the appellant was not maintainable. Hence, it was unnecessary for the High Court, having come to the conclusion that the petition was not maintainable, to enter upon the merits of the controversy which arose before the Facilitation Council.” 27. Considering the above-stated factual and legal submissions and also considering the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the writ petition before this Court is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Considering the above-stated factual and legal submissions and also considering the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the writ petition before this Court is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Since the petitioner has already filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Commercial Court, Raipur, it is directed that the Commercial Court having jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall consider the rival submissions made by the parties, material placed before it and after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Court shall also decide whether the claim put forward by respondent No. 2 exists or not by considering the material placed before it. The Court shall also decide whether Facilitation Council has jurisdiction or not to entertain such application claiming arrears of outstanding against the petitioner. The learned Commercial Court shall decide the issue raised before it without being influenced from any of the observations made by this Court while disposing of the writ petition as per the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merits of the case. 28. With these observations and directions, the instant writ petition is disposed of.