Ravikant Bansal vs M. P. Rural Road Development Authority

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(MP) 558

2012 (II) MPWN 70
(SUPREME COURT)
Markandey Katju and C.K. Prasad, JJ.
Ravikant Bansal v. M.P. Rural Road Development Authority
SLP (C) No. 18867 of 2011;
Decided on 29.7.2011.*

Advocates:
Ashok Mathur for petitioner.

Headnote:Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (M.P.) -- S.7 -- as per arbitration clause, arbitration has to be done by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal. ¼2011½ 13 SCC 261 disinguished. [Para 3
ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1983 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 7 & ek/;LFke~ [kaM ds vuqlkj] e/;LFk fu.kZ; e/; izns‘k ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k }kjk fd;k tkuk gSA ¼2011½ 13 ,l lh lh 261 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 3

ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.3.2011 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior Bench in Ravikant Bansal v. M.P. Rural Road Development Authority [Arbitration case No.4 of 2010, order dated 11.3.2011 (M.P.)]. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court in Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. M.P. SEB ¼2011½ 13 SCC 261 decided on 14.1.2010.

3. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid decision is distinguishable because in the present case the arbitration clause itself mentions that the arbitration will be by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal. Hence, in this case arbitration has to be done by the Tribunal.

4. The special leave petition is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document