A. K. PATNAIK, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is a reference made to the Full Bench by the Division Bench on a question of law arising out of M. P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short 'the Adhiniyam') as amended by the Amending Act No. 36 of 1995.

( 2 ) THE factual background in which the reference has been made to us by the Division Bench is as follows: the petitioner and the respondent entered into a Works Contract on 26-3-1991 under which the petitioner was to undertake the construction of WBM Roads in Malanpur Industrial Area. After completion of the work, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam before the M. P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal (for short 'the Tribunal') on 29-7-1995 making claims under different heads against the respondent totalling Rs. 1,12,1251- with pendente-lite interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The respondent contested the claim by filing a reply and also submitted a counter claim before the Tribunal on 16-1-1991 for an amount of Rs. 2. 51. 816/ -. By award dated 30-4-1998, the Tribunal allowed only an amount of Rs. 7-5,661. 06 towards the claim of the petitioner and allowed the counter claim of Rs. 2,51,8161- of the respondent and after adjustment of Rs. 75,661. 06 against Rs. 2,51,812/-, held that the petitioner is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,76,154. 94 with interest @ 12% per annum to the respondent. The petitioner has challenged the said award in the revision under Section 19 of the Adhiniyam before this Court.

( 3 ) WHEN the hearing of the revision was taken up by the Division Bench of this Court, Mr. S. S. Bansal, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in entertaining and allowing the counter claim of the respondent because the respondent had not made the counter claim before the Final Authority under the terms of the Works Contract and under Section 7-B of the Adhiniyam, as amended by the Amending Act 36/95, the Tribunal can not admit a reference petition unless the dispute is first referred for decision to the Final Authority under the terms of the Works Contract. Mr. Anil Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that in P. K. Pande v. State of M. P. and Ors. 2001 MPLJ 367, a Division bench of this Court has held that a counterclaim is a counter reference and can be entertained by the Tribunal.

( 4 ) THE Division Bench in its order dated 22-2-2006 referred to Section 7-B of the Adhiniyam, as amended by the Amending Act 36/95, which provides that the Tribunal shall not admit a reference unless the dispute is first referred for decision to the Final Authority under the terms of the Works Contract. In the said order dated 22-2-2006, the Division Bench also referred to the opinion of the Full Bench of this Court in Civil Revision 692 of 1998 State of M. P. and Anr. v. Kamal Kishore Sharma in the order dated 13-9-2005 that no reference can be entertained by the Tribunal unless the dispute is first referred to the Final Authority in terms of the Works Contract in accordance with the said Section 7-B of the Adhiniyam. In the said order dated 22-2-2006, the division Bench observed that as another Division Bench in P. K. Pande v. State of M. P. and Ors. (supra) has taken in view that a counter-claim can be entertained by the Tribunal under the Adhiniyam, the following question should be referred to a Larger Bench: whether under the scheme of Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 a counter claim can be entertained without referring the dispute to the Final Authority under the works contract? the aforesaid question of law has therefore been referred to us for our opinion.

( 5 ) MR. S. S. Bansal, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that Section 7-B (1) (a) of the Adhiniyam, as amended by Amending Act 36/95 expressly provides that the Tribunal shall not admit a reference petition unless the dispute is first referred for the decision of the Final Authority und

Click Here to Read the rest of this document