Navigating Judicial Pathways: Examining Writ Jurisdiction Against MSEFC Orders

The Supreme Court referred key questions about the maintainability of writ petitions in high courts against MSEFC orders to a five-judge Constitution bench. The cases explore the interaction between statutory remedies and writ jurisdiction under Article 226, focusing on conciliation and arbitration roles of MSEFC under the MSMED Act.


Devdiscourse News Desk | New Delhi | Updated: 22-01-2025 20:30 IST | Created: 22-01-2025 20:30 IST
Navigating Judicial Pathways: Examining Writ Jurisdiction Against MSEFC Orders
This image is AI-generated and does not depict any real-life event or location. It is a fictional representation created for illustrative purposes only.
  • Country:
  • India

The Supreme Court has escalated the debate over the maintainability of writ petitions in high courts, directing critical questions to a five-judge Constitution bench. This comes in a case involving Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited against the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC), raising crucial jurisdictional issues.

The core of the argument is whether writ petitions can challenge orders from the MSEFC, which operates under the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act. This legal tussle seeks clarity on when parties can bypass statutory remedies to access high courts via Article 226 of the Constitution.

Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna's bench laid out three pivotal questions for further examination, focusing on whether the existing legal framework under the MSMED Act allows MSEFC members to act both as conciliators and arbitrators, and under what circumstances writ jurisdiction could be maintained.

(With inputs from agencies.)

Give Feedback