As per case facts, the Petitioner, a resort developer, contracted Respondent No. 2 for electrical works. Disputes over payment led Respondent No. 2 to obtain an award from the MSEFC. ... The Petitioner challenged this award under Section 34, but interim relief was denied due to the mandatory pre-deposit requirement. This led the Petitioner to file the present writ petition. The question arose whether this Writ Petition should be entertained, given the Petitioner had already pursued a statutory remedy, failed to make the required pre-deposit, and raised jurisdictional challenges about MSME registration timing and the nature of the contracts as 'works contracts'. Finally, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition with costs, citing the Petitioner's simultaneous pursuit of remedies, delay, and the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction, especially when a statutory remedy with a pre-deposit condition was available. The court found no grounds to intervene.