Synopsis

The petitioner (Nitin Seth) filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking to quash an arbitral award passed under the MSME Act, 2006. The petitioner argued that the reference made by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) under Section 18(3) of the MSME Act was ultra vires because the underlying dispute pertained to a works contract, which, according to the petitioner, fell outside the purview of the Act. The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that such objections (including jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal) must be raised under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that the writ court should not interfere with the arbitral process except in rare and exceptional circumstances. The court relied on a consistent line of precedents, including Executive Engineer v. Bholasingh Jaiprakash Construction Ltd. and M/s India Glycols Ltd. v. MSEFC (Supreme Court), which held that Article 226 petitions cannot be used to bypass the statutory remedies under the Arbitration Act.

Court: High Court of Delhi
Coram: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
Date: March 25, 2026
Citation: Not explicitly provided in the text (likely 2026:DHC:xxxx)
Core Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37; Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 – Section 18; Constitutional Law – Article 226.

2. Legal Framework

• Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006: Section 18 – reference of disputes to Facilitation Council and arbitration.

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 34 – setting aside of arbitral award; Section 37 – appeal.

• Constitution of India: Article 226 – writ jurisdiction.

• Relevant Precedents:
  Executive Engineer v. Bholasingh Jaiprakash Construction Ltd. (2024

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.