( 1 ) DISPUTES having arisen between the appellants and the respondent, a reference was made to arbitration under Section 7 of the M. P. Madhyastham adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). Before the tribunal, it was contended that having availed of arbitration under clause 29 of the contract it was not open to invoke Section 7 of the Act. This contention was rejected. A revision petition was filed under Section 19 of the Act in the madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court upheld the view of the Arbitral tribunal. Hence this appeal by special leave. In this appeal the limited question raised for consideration is as to the scope of clause 29 (2) of the contract between the parties under which the respondent executed certain works and effect of Section 7 of the Act upon the same.

( 2 ) THE contention put forth before us is that in terms of clause 29 of the contract the respondent had invoked the jurisdiction of the Superintending engineer and the Chief Engineer and when their decision went against it, sought to avail of the remedy under provisions of Section 7 of the Act; that, it is not open to the party having acquiesced in the arbitration proceedings un