Back
2006(2) JLJ 186
(FULL BENCH)
A.K. Patnaik, C.J., S.S. Jha and Subhash Samvatsar, JJ.
Ravikant Bansal v. M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam, Gwalior and another
Civil Revision No. 675 of 1998. on reference made by Division Bench;
Decided on 7.4.2006.
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? [Para 4
Held: It will be clear from clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 7-B of the Adhiniyam that the Tribunal shall not admit a reference petition unless the dispute is first referred for decision of the final authority under the terms of the works contract. [Para 9
These provisions of sub-section (5) of section 7 and sub-section (1) of section 7-B of the Adhiniyam would equally apply to reference of a dispute made by a party in a claim petition as well as reference made by the opposite party in a counter-claim. Hence, the Tribunal may reject a reference of dispute in a counter-claim made by the opposite party summarily for reasons to be recorded if it is so satisfied in exercise of its powers under sub-section (5) of section 7 of the Adhiniyam. Similarly, the Tribunal shall not admit the reference of the dispute made in a counter-claim if as stated in sub-section (1) of section 7-B of the Adhiniyam, the dispute raised in the counter-claim has not been referred for decision of the final authority in terms of the works contract or the reference petition in the counter-claim to the Tribunal has not been made within the period of limitation mentioned under clause (b) or the proviso thereto under sub-section (1) of section 7 -B of the Adhiniyam. [Para 10
We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the Tribunal cannot entertain or admit a counter-claim if the dispute raised in the counter-claim tiled by the opposite party has not been referred to the final authority in terms of the works contract or where it has been referred to the final authority but the counter-claim has not been tiled before the Tribunal within the period of limitation as provided in clause (b) or the proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 7-B of the Adhiniyam. 2006(1) JLJ 322 (FB) relied on. [Para 11
(2) Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (M.P.) --Ss. 7 (1) 3 and 2(1)(d) -- dispute as defined under S. 2(1)(d) raised by one party under S. 7(1) -- opposite party can refer his counter-claim to the Tribunal -- Tribunal constituted under S. 3 is under obligation to resolve all disputes.2006(1) MPU 367 and 2005 RN 388 approved. AIR 1964 SC 11 followed. [Paras 7 & 8
¼1½ ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1983 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 7&[k ¼1½ ¼d½ vkSj ¼[k½ ¼lu~ 1995 esa ;Fkk la‘kksf/kr½ rFkk 7¼1½ vkSj ¼5½ && /kkjk 7¼1½ ds v/khu izfrnkos dk funsZ‘k && /kkjk 7&[k ds v/khu micaf/kr ifjlhek,¡ iw.kZr% ykxw gksrh gS && fookn igys vafre izkf/kdkjh dks funsZf‘kr ugha fd;k x;k gks rc rd funsZ‘k xzg.k ugha fd;k tk ldrk && /kkjk 7&[k ¼1½ ¼[k½ ds v/khu micaf/kr ifjlhek ds Hkhrj izLrqr Hkh fd;k tkuk pkfg,A D;k ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1983 dh ;kstuk ds v/khu] ladeZ lafonk ds v/khu vafre izkf/kdkjh dks fookn funsZf‘kr fd, fcuk izfrnkok xzg.k fd;k tk ldrk gS \ vfHkfu/kkZfjr % vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk &7[k dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ dh [kaM ¼d½ ls Li"V gks tkrk gS fd vf/kdj.k funsZ‘k vthZ rc rd xzg.k ugha dh tk,xh tc rd fd fookn igys ladeZ lafonk ds fuca/kuksa ds v/khu vafre izkf/kdkjh dks fofu‘p; ds fy, funsZf‘kr ugha fd;k x;k gksA ¿ iSjk 9À vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 dh mi/kkjk ¼5½ vkSj /kkjk 7&[k dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds ;g mica/k i{kdkj }kjk nkok vthZ ds fd, x, fookn ds funsZ‘k rFkk fojks/kh i{kdkj }kjk izfrnkos esa fd, x, funsZ‘k] nksuksa dh leku :i ls ykxw gksxkA vr%] ;fn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 dh mi/kkjk ¼5½ ds v/khu ‘kfDr ds iz;ksx ls vf/kdj.k dk lek/kku gks tk, rc vf/kdj.k fd, tkus okys dkj.kksa ls laf{kIrr% ukeatwj dj ldrk gSA blh izdkj] ;fn vf/kf;e dh /kkjk 7&[k dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ esa ;Fkk dfFkr] izfrnkos esa mBk;k x;k fookn ladeZ lafonk ds fuca/kkuqlkj vafre izkf/kdkjh ds fofu‘p; ds fy, funsZf‘kr ugha fd;k x;k gS vFkok vf/kdj.k dks fd, x, izfrnkos esa funsZ‘k vthZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7&[k dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ 1 v/khu [kaM ¼[k½ ;k mlds ijarqd ds v/khu mfYyf[kr ifjlhek vof/k ds Hkhrj ugha dh xbZ gS rc vf/kdj.k izfrnkos esa fd;k x;k fookn dk funsZ‘k Lohdkj ugha djsxkA vr% gekjh lqfoosfpr jk; gS fd vf/kdj.k izfrnkok xzg.k ;k Lohdkj ugha dj ldrk] ;fn fojks/kh i{kdkj }kjk Qkby fd, x, izfrnkos esa mBk;k x;k fookn ladeZ lafonk ds fuac/kukuqlkj vafre izkf/kdkjh dks funsZf‘kr ugha fd;k x;k gks vFkok tgk¡ og vafre izkf/kdkjh dks funsZf‘kr fd;k x;k gS ijarq vf/kdj.k ds le{k izfrnkok vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7&[k dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds ijarqd esa ;Fkk micaf/kr ifjlhek vof/k ds Hkhrj Qkby ugha fd;k x;k gksA 2006¼1½ ts ,y ts 322 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 11À ¼2½ ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1983 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 7¼1½] 3 rFkk 2 ¼1½ ¼?k½ ds v/khu ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr fookn ,d i{kdkj }kjk /kkjk 7¼1½ ds v/khu mBk;k x;k && fojks/kh i{kdkj viuk izfrnkok vf/kdj.k dks funsZf‘kr dj ldrk gS && /kkjk 3 ds v/khu xfBr vf/kdj.k leLr fookn lqy>kus dh ck/;rk ds v/khu gSA 2000¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 367 rFkk 2005 jk fu 388 vuqeksfnrA , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 11 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 7 ,oa 8À
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 Adhiniyajm. 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 totaling Rs.7,72,725/- 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. 75,661.06 towards the claim of the petitioner and allowed the counter-claim of Rs. 2,51,816/- ofthe 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 cannot 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 others [2000( 1) MPLJ 367], a Division Bench of this Court has held that a counter-claim 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 No. 692 of 1998 [State of M.P. and another v. Kamal Kishore Sharma] [2006(1) JLJ 322] 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 others (supra) has taken a view that a counter-claim can be entertained by the Tribunal under the Adhiniyam, the following question should be referred to a large 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
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
