JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

1. The appellant was appointed as a contractor to construct a minor bridge. The contract was granted by the first respondent–State of Madhya Pradesh. The second respondent, Executive Engineer, National Highway Division Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, rescinded the contract by the letter dated 9th November 2001. Clause 29 in the work order incorporated an arbitration clause. The appellant requested for constitution of an Arbitral Board. The said request was rejected. Even the subsequent representation was rejected. Therefore, the appellant applied for a reference to the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal (for short, ‘the Arbitration Tribunal’) in accordance with Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short, ‘the 1983 Act’). By the order dated 19th April 2010, the Arbitration Tribunal concluded that as there was an arbitration clause in the contract, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Arbitration Act’) would apply. The Tribunal held that only when there is no arbitration clause, the provisions of the 1983 Act would apply. In view of this order, the appellant filed a