Back
2005 Supreme(MP) 1056
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
K. K. LAHOTI, S. S. DWIVEDI
JAGJEET SINGH - Appellant
Versus
BHOPAL VIKAS pradhikaran - Respondents
Civil Revn. 2296 Of 1999
Decided On : 10/20/2005
ASHOK LALVANI, SHEKHAR SHARMA
The principle of res judicata applies in proceedings, and once an issue is decided between the parties, it cannot be reopened at a later stage in the same proceedings.
Headnote:
Adhiniyam - M. P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 - Section 7, Section 7-B, Section 20 - The court discussed the interpretation and application of Section 7-B of the Adhiniyam, which provides for limitation in reference petitions to the Tribunal. The court also considered the principle of res judicata and its applicability in the proceedings before the Tribunal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's reference application under Section 7 of M. P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of limitation. The petitioner challenged the dismissal on the grounds of res judicata and erroneous interpretation of the law by the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal erred in reconsidering the question of limitation after it had already been decided in favor of the petitioner. The order of the Tribunal was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits.
Issues: The issues involved the reconsideration of the question of limitation by the Tribunal and the applicability of the principle of res judicata in the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once an issue is decided between the parties in proceedings, it has the effect of res judicata and cannot be reopened by the party at a later stage in the same proceedings. The Tribunal erred in reconsidering the question of limitation after it had already been decided in favor of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The order of the Tribunal was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits. The petitioner was entitled to costs of litigation.
( 2 ) THIS order has been assailed by the petitioner on following grounds :- (i) That the Tribunal erred in considering the question of limitation while the said question was considered and decided by the tribunal by order dated 28-10-1994 by which the Tribunal held that the application is not barred by limitation and rejected the objection of respondents. Once the question was heard and decided it ought not to have been reconsidered by the Tribunal. (ii) That the order dated 28-10-1994 was having res judicata between the parties as the matter agitated by the respondents was decided on merits by the Tribunal. Thus the principle of res judicata applies and the same question ought not to have been permitted to be raised by the Tribunal to the respondents. Reliance is placed to the Apex court decision in Mohanlal Goenka v. Benoy kishna Mukherjee and others, AIR 1953 SC 65, Satyadhyan Ghosal and others v. Smt. Deorajin Debi and another, AIR 1960 SC 941, Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and others, AIR 1964 SC 993.
( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for respondents supported the order on the ground that there was erroneous decision on the question of law that the Tribunal wrongly interpreted section 7-B of the Adhiniyam and without considering sub-section (2) of Section 7-B has decided the matter. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly rectified the error by passing impugned order and has rightly rejected the application as barred by time. Reliance is placed to Apex Court judgment Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal and others v. Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy, AIR 1971 SC 2355 and submitted that this revision may be dismissed.
( 4 ) AS the controversy involved is short one and it is not necessary to go into merits of the case, as the matter is to be decided purely on the question of law. The question is whether the Tribunal which decided the question of limitation by order dated 28-10-1994 was having jurisdiction to reconsider the question of limitation in the matter ? The another question is whether the order dated 28-10-1994 is having effect of res judicata between the parties in the same proceedings or not ?
( 5 ) THE M. P. Madhyastham Adhikaran adhiniyam, 1983 has been enacted on 12-10-1983 by which the Tribunal has been established to arbitrate in disputes to which the State Government or a Public Undertaking is a party. Under Section 3 of the adhiniyam, the State Government by notification constituted an Arbitration Tribunal for resolving all such disputes or differences pertaining to works contract or arising out of or connected with execution, discharge or satisfaction of any such works contract. Under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam, either party to a works contract shall irrespective of the fact whether the agreement contains an arbitration clause or not, refer in writing the dispute to the Tribunal. Section 20 of the Adhiniyam bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court after constitution of Tribunal and no civil Court is having jurisdiction to entertain and decide any dispute of which cognizance can be taken by the Tribunal under the Adhiniyam. The aforesaid Tribunal has been constituted to decide all the disputes in respect of which the Civil Court was having jurisdiction prior to coming into force of aforesaid Adhiniyam.
( 6 ) THIS Tribunal is functioning to decide the aforesaid dispute between private persons and the State Government or a public undertaking in respect of work contract, and vested with the powers of Civil Court under section 12 of the Act. In the aforesaid ci
