M/S TAMIL NADU CEMENTS CORPORATION LIMITED versus MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2025] 1 S.C.R. 880 · Decided: 22-01-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJIV KHANNA · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 880 : 2025 INSC 91
M/s Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited 
v. 
Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council 
and Another
(Civil Appeal No. 1016 of 2025)
22 January 2025
[Sanjiv Khanna,* CJI, Sanjay Kumar and Manmohan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution 
would be maintainable against an order passed by the Micro 
and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) in exercise 
of power under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium  
Enterprises Development Act, 2006, and if yes, under what 
circumstances.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art.226 – Micro, Small and Medium 
Enterprises Development Act, 2006 – s.18 – Existence of the 
statutory remedy and Writ jurisdiction of the High Court:
Held: In the opinion of this Court, there is a direct confrontation 
between the judgment of the two Judges Bench of this Court 
in Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited and Gujarat State Civil 
Supplies Corporation Limited – A three-Judges Bench of this 
Court in M/s India Glycols Limited and Another v. Micro and Small 
Enterprises Facilitation Council, Medchal - Malkajgiri and Others, 
referring to the judgment in Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation 
Limited, held that a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the 
Constitution was not maintainable as Section 18 of the MSMED 
Act provides for recourse to a statutory remedy for challenging 
an award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation 
Act, 1996 – This Court have reservations on the dictum in M/s 
India Glycols Limited – In the light of the various Supreme Court 
decisions, it is deemed appropriate to refer the following questions 
raised in the present appeal to a larger Bench of five Judges, 
namely: (i) Whether the ratio in M/s India Glycols Limited that a 
writ petition could never be entertained against any order/award 
* Author
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 
881
M/s Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited v. 
Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Another
of the MSEFC, completely bars or prohibits maintainability of the 
writ petition before the High Court; (ii) If the bar/prohibition is not 
absolute, when and under what circumstances will the principle/
restriction of adequate alternative remedy not apply; (iii) Whether 
the members of MSEFC who undertake conciliation proceedings, 
upon failure, can themselves act as arbitrators of the arbitral tribunal 
in terms of Section 18 of the MSMED Act read with Section 80 of 
the A&C Act. [Paras 7, 10, 11, 15, 19]
Constitution of India – Art.226 – Access to the High Courts 
u/Art.226 of Constitution is a part of basic structure:
Held: The access to High Courts by way of a writ petition under 
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not just a constitutional 
right but also a part of the basic structure – It is available to every 
citizen whenever there is a violation of their constitutional rights 
or even statutory rights – This is an inalienable right and the rule 
of availability of alternative remedy is not an omnibus rule of 
exclusion of the writ jurisdiction, but a principle applied by the High 
Courts as a form of judicial restraint and refrain in exercising the 
jurisdiction – The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 
226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and the same is not 
limited by any provision of the Constitution and cannot be restricted 
or circumscribed by a statute – It has been well settled through a 
legion of judicial pronouncements of this Court that the writ courts, 
despite the availability of alternative remedies, may exercise writ 
jurisdiction at least in three contingencies – i) where there is a 
violation of principles of natural justice or fundamental rights; ii) 
where an order in a proceeding is wholly without jurisdiction; or 
iii) where the vires of an Act is challenged. [Para 13]
Case Law Cited
Himmatlal Harilal Mehta v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others 
[1954] 1 SCR 1122 : (1954) 1 SCC 405; Govind Parameswar 
Nair and Others v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 
Other (2001) 9 SCC 166 – followed.
Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. State of Rajasthan and 
Others [2021] 9 SCR 497 : (2021) 19 SCC 206; Gujarat State Civil 
Supplies Corporation Limited v. Mahakali Foods Private Limited 
(Unit 2) and Another [2022] 19 SCR 1094 : (2023) 6 SCC 401;  
882
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
M/s India Glycols Limited and Another v. Micro and Small 
Enterprises Facili

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.