The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition pertaining to a contractual matter on the ground of availability of alternate efficacious remedy. The Bench noted that the remedy of a dispute resolution system was provided in one of the clauses of the contract.

The High Court was considering a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order rescinding the contract of the petitioner.

The Division Bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi held, “We are not oblivious of the legal position that there is no absolute bar for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite availability of alternative redressal forum. However, in the facts of the present case we are not inclined to interfere in a contractual matter where remedy of dispute resolution system is provided. In view of aforesaid, the petition is not entertained on the ground of availability of alternate efficacious remedy and same stands dismissed.”

Senior Counsel Ashok Kumar Garg represented the Petitioner while Advocate Pradyumna Kibe represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the petitioner’s case that the order was passed arbitrarily and without following the principle of natural justice as the ground raised by the petitioner in reply to the showcause notice was not considered. It was further submitted that there is no absolute bar for the Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 even if the contract provides for an arbitration clause.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of raising dispute under clause 12 of the contract which provided for a dispute resolution system.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to Clause 12 of the contract, which provides for an alternative and efficacious remedy of raising a dispute before the competent authority and thereafter the First Appeal and then a reference to the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.

The Bench held that the authority that had passed the order was a competent authority and the order was passed after issuing a show-cause notice and inviting a reply.

The Bench further found that a remedy of a dispute resolution system was provided and thus refused to entertain the petition on the ground of the availability of an alternate efficacious remedy. Dismissing the petition, it stated, “However, any observation made by us, would not prejudice the points raised by the petitioner, if any, in case the alternative remedy is resorted.”

Cause Title: M/s. Prabha Exim Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Akash v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:7764)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Counsel Ashok Kumar Garg, Advocate Bhavya Garg

Respondent: Advocate Pradyumna Kibe

Click here to read/download Order


Madhya Pradesh High CourtJustice Vijay Kumar ShuklaJustice Alok Awasthi

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.