Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Rural Development And Another vs M/S Jk Technos Industrial Complex … on 9 February, 2026
Author: Javed Iqbal Wani
Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani
S. No. 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) 192/2026 CM(453/2026)
Caveat 3030/2025
Date of pronouncement 09-02-2026
Uploaded on 16-02-2026
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND ANOTHER ...Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Mohammad Ashraf Wani, Adv
Vs.
M/S JK TECHNOS INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX KHANMOH AND ...Respondent(s)
OTHERS (J AND K SIDCO)
Through: Mr. Mehraj-ud-in Bhat for Caveator with
Mr. Murfad Naseem, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
09.02.2026
1. Extraordinary writ jurisdiction enshrined in Article 226 as also
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has
been invoked by the petitioners herein for quashing of award dated
10.02.2025 (hereinafter for short “the impugned award”). passed by the
respondent 2 herein being Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation
Council Kashmir/Srinagar. (hereinafter for short “the Council”)
2. Facts emerging from the petition are that the respondent 1 herein lodged a
claim under the provisions of Micro and Small Medium Enterprises
Development Act 2006 (for short the Act of 2006) against the petitioners
and respondent 3 herein claiming therein that it being a Small Scale
Enterprise/Supplier under and in terms of the Act of 2006 made various
supplies of RCC Spun Pipes 9″ and 12″ through respondent 3 herein to
the petitioner herein and consequently raised a bill for an amount of Rs.
683804/- for release of payments thereof and upon failure by the
1|Page
WP(C) 192/2026
petitioners 1 and 2 herein and being respondents before the council and
the council in terms of award dated 10.02.2025 allowed the claim and
directed the respondents in the claim petition/petitioners herein to pay the
principal amount of Rs. 683804/- to the claimant/respondent 1 herein
along with compound interest thereof at three time with the bank rate
notified by Reserve Bank of India in accordance with the provisions of
Section 16 of the Act of 2006 from the date of accrual of the amount
claimed till the date of its liquidation.
3. The petitioners herein having questioned the award dated 10-02-2025
have maintained the instant petition, inter alia, on the premise that the
impugned award is legally unsustainable having been passed in violation
and breach of the statutory provisions of the Act of 2006 inasmuch as
without due consideration of the material pleadings and evidence, having
stated further that the appellate remedy under Section 19 of the Act
would not bar the maintainability of the instant petition under Article
226/227 of the Constitution, in that the impugned award has been passed
by the council without jurisdiction as well as in violation of the principles
of natural justice.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also the counsel for the
Caveator.
4. The counsel for the caveator-respondent 1 while making his submissions
at the very outset raised a preliminary objections qua the maintainability
of the petition contending that there is a statutory remedy provided under
the provisions of Arbitration & Consolidation Act of 1996 against the
award passed under the Act of 2006 and, as such, in presence of the same
the present petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel in this regard
2|Page
WP(C) 192/2026
heavily placed reliance on two judgments passed by the coordinate
judges in cases titled as “UT of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr vs. M/S
Gulati Metals and Alloys, & Union Territory of J&K vs M/S JTL Infra
Limited Th. Its Managing Director” decided on 10-02-2025 and 21-02-
2025 respectively.
5. On the contrary the counsel for the petitioners herein would submit that
the law regarding the maintainability of the petition under Article
226/227 qua the Act of 2006 is pending adjudication before the Apex
Court upon a reference having been made in case titled as M/S Tamil
Nadu Cements Corporation Limited vs Micro and Small Enterprises
Facilitation Council and Anr as such, the instant petition can be
entertained notwithstanding the law laid down in India Glycols Limited
vs. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Ors as also in
presence of the availability of the statutory remedy under Section 34 of
the Act of 1996.
6. The aforesaid plea of the counsel for the petitioners, however, cannot be
accepted in view of the decision rendered by the Coordinate Benches in
the judgments supra wherein both the Coordinate Benches have
specifically ruled that the petition under Article 226/227 is not
maintainable in presence of the judgments passed by the Apex Court
inter alia in case of M/S India Glycols Limited supra, being occupying
the field as on date notwithstanding the reference made by the Apex
Court in case of M/S Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited
(Supra). This Court has no reason to take a different view than the view
taken by the Coordinate Benches in cases supra.
3|Page
WP(C) 192/2026
7. Under these circumstances, the preliminary objections raised qua the
maintainability of the writ petition by the counsel for the respondents
succeeds and petition accordingly is held not maintainable.
(JAVED IQBAL WANI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
09.02.2026
Sarvar
Whether the order is Speaking Yes
Whether the order is reportable Yes/No
4|Page
WP(C) 192/2026
