( 1 ) THIS Misc. Appeal under S. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'act' for short) is directed against the order dt. 7-3-2002 in Arbitration Case No. 3/2002 by ninth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, holding that the Civil Court has no Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application under S. 9 of the Act.

( 2 ) THE appellant is the proprietor of m/s. Gaurav Builders, which specialises in installation and construction of Water Treatment plants. A notice inviting tender dt. 16-11-1993 (Annexure A-l) was issued for design, construction and commission of Water Treatment Plant near Lalpur for Jabalpur water Supply Scheme. The appellant in response to the above tender submitted her bid. Appellant's tender was accepted and contract was awarded to the appellant by letter dt. 14-8-95. The appellant in pursuance of the contract submitted the design of said plant and started execution of the said work. However, the work could not be completed within the time stipulated between the parties and a dispute arose between them.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the appellant, she could not complete the work within the specified period because of the default on the part of respondents, e. g. delay in approval of the design, delayed payment of running bills to her etc. , as per the agreement. According to the appellant, she completed the work originally assigned to her, as well as some additional work and informed respondent No. 4 that a pump including ancillaries has to be installed to draw water. However, the respondents did not take necessary steps to do so. Thereafter, the respondents invited tender for the remaining work of Water treatment Plant, vide publication in daily newspaper 'nav Bharat' dt. 18-1-2002 (Annexure A-8 ). The respondents as per letter dt. 4-2-2002 (Annexure A-9) also intimated the appellant that she could not complete the work as per schedule upto 28-2-2001, hence the balance work was proposed to be executed at the risk and cost of appel-lant. In response to the said letter, the ap-pellant submitted representation (Annexure a-10) pointing out that she was not at fault and that the respondents have violated the terms and conditions of contract between the parties. In view of notice (Annexure A-8)by respondents, the appellant moved an application under S. 9 of the Act (Annexure a-11) in the lower Court, praying that the respondents be restrained from taking action in pursuance to the said notice inviting tenders.

( 4 ) THE respondents Nos. 1 to 4 resisted and raised objections as per their reply (Annexure A-12) regarding appellant's application (Annexure A-11) under S. 9 of the act. A preliminary objection was raised by them regarding the maintainability of said proceedings under S. 9 of the Act. It was averred on behalf of respondents that the work to be executed by the appellant was a "works Contract" as defined in M. P. Madhyastham' Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'adhiniyam' for short ). It was therefore averred that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred.

( 5 ) BY the impugned order the trial Court upheld the respondents objection as above and held that the contract between the parties is 'works Contract' as defined in adhiniyam. Therefore, It was held that, as provided under Ss. 7 and 20 of the adhiniyam, Civil Court had no jurisdiction. Accordingly, appellant's application (Annexure A-11) under S. 9 of the Act, was ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper forum.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for appellant has assailed the impugned order. It was submitted that the contract between the parties did not fall within the definition of 'works Contract' and that the said expression has been misconstrued by the learned lower Court. It was submitted that the provisions of adhiniyam are not attracted and the Civil court was competent and had jurisdiction to consider and decide the application under s. 9 of the Act.

( 7 ) AS against the above, the learned co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document