Madras HC: once a Section 34 challenge to an MSMED Act award fails, the only route is a Section 37 appeal, not a writ

A State-owned medical supplies corporation that had deducted liquidated damages from a generator supplier's bill was taken to arbitration by the supplier under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, before the Uttar Pradesh State Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, which awarded a refund with statutory compound interest. After the corporation's challenge to the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed by the Commercial Court, it filed a writ petition, and then this intra-court appeal, arguing that the Council's proceedings suffered jurisdictional defects that only a writ could correct. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court disagreed.

Under Section 18(4) of the MSMED Act, an award of a Facilitation Council carries the same status and binding force as an arbitral award under the 1996 Act, which is a self-contained code intended to minimise judicial intervention; once a party invokes Section 34 and loses, Section 37 provides the specific statutory appeal, and a writ under Article 226 cannot be used to bypass that exhaustive machinery merely because the earlier dismissal rested on delay rather than merits. Having itself invoked Section 34 and treated the Council's order as an award for that purpose, the corporation could not later argue it was not one. The appeal was dismissed and the Single Judge's order confirmed.