The jurisdiction of Civil Courts is not completely ousted by the creation of a liability and provision of a remedy by a statute. A suit in a Civil Court will always lie to question the order of a Tribunal created by a statute, even if its order is expressly or by necessary implication, made final, if the Tribunal abuses its power or does not act under the Act, but in violation of its provisions.

S.K. Jha, C.J.

1. The Order passed in this Misc. Appeal shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 350/90 between the same parties.

2. In both the appeals, the same point is involved and the common question arising in the two appeals which has been referred by the Division Bench consisting of Dharmadhikari and Issrani, JJ. for decision by a Larger Bench is whether an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act pending in the Civil Court prior to the date of constitution of the Arbitration Tribunal, i.e. 1-3-1985, would be saved by the provisions of Section 20(2) of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983? Hence this Full Bench for a decision of the aforementioned question of law.

3. A Division Bench consisting of B.C. Varma, J. as he then was, and Rampal Singh, J. by its judgment and Order dated 24-8-1987, in M.A. No. 168 of 1985, M/s Firm Trilok Chand Garg v. State of Madhya Pradesh had taken the view that the arbitration proceedings pending before any Tribunal within the meaning of Section 20(2) of the M.P.Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam), (Act No. 29 of 1983), means that an application filed before the Court under sub- section (1) of Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 awaiting the decision of the Court for a decision to refer the matter for arbitration, could not be said to be an arbitration proceeding pending before any Tribunal or Court within the meaning of the Adhiniyam. The Division Bench referring these cases to this Full Bench, has doubted the correctness of the aforesaid decision and taken the view, broadly speaking, that even an application under Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Arbitration Act which was pending in any Court before the date on which the Tribunal was constituted under the Adhiniyam, would be saved by Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Adhiniyam.

4. In order to test as to which of the two views is correct, we need to refer to some relevant provisions of the Adhiniyam as well as the Arbitration Act. The Adhiniyam (Act No. 29 of 1983) prescribes in Sub-section (3) of Section 1 that it shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification, appoint. Such appointed date is the 1st March, 1985, as is evident from the M. P. Rajpatra Asadharan (M.P. Gazette Extraordinary), dated 18-2-1985. Section 3 of the Adhiniyam states that the State Government shall, by notification, constitute 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 and in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Adhiniyam, the State Government constituted an Arbitration Tribunal with effect from 1st March, 1985 itself which is also evidenced by the Gazette Extraordinary, of the same date and same number, being M. P. Gazette Extraordinary, dated 18-2-1985. So far all practical purposes, the two relevant dates are the same, namely, the appointed date from which the Adhiniyam came into force, and the date on which the Tribunal was duly constituted under the Adhiniyam.

5. In Section 2 of the Adhiniyam, 'dispute' has been defined as meaning a claim of ascertained money valued at Rs. 50,000.00 or more relating to any difference arising out of the execution or non-execution of a works contract or part thereof, and a works contract has been defined to mean 'an agreement in writing for the execution of any work relating to construction, repair or maintenance of any building or superstructure, dam, weir, canal, reservoir, tank, lake, road, well, bridge, culvert, factory, workshop, power house, transformers of such other works of the State Government or Public Undertaking as the State Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf at any of its stages entered into by the State Government or by an official of the State Government or Public Undertaking or its official for and on b