“See the attitude of the Counsel must be to get relief for the party rather than getting a beautiful judgement on maintainability. This law, that law, this doctrine, that doctrine – it is all meant for you (advocates) and us (judges) but the client will be saying 'what is there for me?',” Justice BV Nagarathna observed.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan dismissed an SLP challenging an order passed by the Allahabad High Court in a writ petition against an arbitral award granted to the petitioner, an MSME named M/s Tara Techno Machines Pvt. Ltd.

The High Court kept the execution of the award in abeyance, while directing the respondent M/s Shree Rathi Steel Ltd. to deposit 75% of the awarded amount.

The petitioner's grievance before the Supreme Court was that the writ petition itself was not maintainable and that the dispute ought to have been pursued under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Justice Nagarathna asked the counsel why the petitioner had approached the Supreme Court when the award was in its favour.

When the counsel submitted that the writ petition filed by the respondent was not maintainable, Justice Nagarathna pointed out that the High Court had already directed the respondent to deposit 75% of the award amount. She suggested that instead of pursuing challenge to maintainability, the petitioner seek to withdraw the deposited amount.

“You file application for withdrawal of the amount. The amount has been secured for you. You should know how to go about it. Ultimately your client must get relief not by getting a beautiful order on the maintainability of a writ petition. Rightly or wrongly, now the court has asked the respondent to deposit 75%. Take advantage of it and file an application to seek withdrawal. We have to advise you, file an application for withdrawal of the amount and move that application before the High Court,” she advised the counsel.

The judge stressed that counsel must distinguish between situations where maintainability needs to be contested and situations where a party can benefit from an order already passed by the court.

She added, “You have succeeded in the arbitration, High Court asked to deposit 75%. You go and ask for withdrawal. Why are you saying maintainability? You should know how to take advantage of court orders, when to fight on maintainability and when not to fight. The client is concerned about whether he will get the amount, judgments are only for us.”

The dispute arose from an award dated November 13, 2024 passed by the Zonal Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Saharanpur, directing M/s Shree Rathi Steel Ltd. to deposit Rs.6,25,677.80 along with interest under Section 16 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.

The company challenged the award before the Allahabad High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. M/s Tara Techno Machines Pvt. Ltd. objected to the maintainability of the writ petition, relying on the alternative remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The High Court noted that the issue of maintainability of a writ petition against an award of the MSME Facilitation Council is pending before a larger bench of the Supreme Court. It ultimately directed M/s Shree Rathi Steel Ltd. to deposit 75% of the awarded amount with the Registrar General, to be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank bearing interest. Subject to the deposit, execution of the award was kept in abeyance.

Case no. – SLP(C) No. 31334/2026

Case Title – M/S Tara Techno Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Shree Rathi Steel Ltd.