https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765026 Article 226 writ jurisdiction is not ousted by the mere existence of a statutory remedy against Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council action under the MSMED Act; alternative remedy is ordinarily a rule of discretion and self-restraint, subject to recognised exceptions such as lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, and vires challenges. The court also noted that onerous statutory pre-deposit conditions may be relevant to that discretion. It further addressed the separate question whether Council members who conduct conciliation may later act as arbitrators under Section 18 read with Section 80 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, noting the divergence in authority. These issues were not finally resolved and were referred to a larger Bench. en-us Wed, 22 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:44:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765026 Article 226 writ jurisdiction is not ousted by the mere existence of a statutory remedy against Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council action under the MSMED Act; alternative remedy is ordinarily a rule of discretion and self-restraint, subject to recognised exceptions such as lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, and vires challenges. The court also noted that onerous statutory pre-deposit conditions may be relevant to that discretion. It further addressed the separate question whether Council members who conduct conciliation may later act as arbitrators under Section 18 read with Section 80 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, noting the divergence in authority. These issues were not finally resolved and were referred to a larger Bench. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 22 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765026